I find the conspiracy theories, conflict of interest theories etc., rather unconvincing. If there has been opposition to LENR I think the reasons are quite understandable and reflect the natural prudence of the scientific and industrial community.
This is the 100th anniversary of the battle of the Somme, July to November 1916. 1.5 million men were killed in this battle. On the first day, the British suffered 57,000 casualties.
This was perhaps the most extreme folly in human history. You talk about the "natural prudence" of the scientific and industrial community. Where was that natural prudence in the military in 1916? Where in the political system? Where was it in the banking system in 2008? Or in any establishment? I do not see it. Yes, of course sometimes people are prudent. At other times . . . as Winston Churchill wrote:
"Accusing as I do without exception all the great allied offensives of 1915, 1916 and 1917 as needless and wrongly conceived operations of infinite cost, I am bound to reply to the question, What else could be done? And I answer it, pointing to the Battle of Cambrai. 'This could have been done.' This in many variants, this in larger and better forms ought to have been done, and would have been done if only the Generals had not been content to fight machine-gun bullets with the breasts of gallant men, and think that that was waging war."
- The World Crisis 1911 - 1918
There is no reason to think that the physics establishment has some natural propensity to accept correct answers, or to root out error, or to do things right. There is nothing self-correcting about science any more than there is about computer programming, banking, farming or running a grocery store. Or conducting a World War. The scientific establishment is made up of ordinary people with ordinary prejudices and foolish notions. They make drastic mistakes as often as anyone does.