You are saying that peer-reviewed journal papers by Fleischmann are not credible.
Yes. But I also give the reasons. A.) Inaccurate calorimetry in most cases. B.) In some cases, failure to prove the accuracy/precision of a presumed measurement method (specifically the 'video stills of foaming' method for detecting supposed 'heat-after-death' events). And I put the objections in writing for others to examine and critique. Unlike Fleischmann, who just gets irritated at his critics and throws their papers out. Hint: Fleischmann is not a god. His SERS experience should have told you that.
You are telling us that a Fellow of the Royal Society writing in a peer reviewed journal is not credible.
Yes. 'Calls to authority' prove nothing JR. Garbage gets published in peer-reviewed journals all the time. Peer review just minimizes the quantity of it. Further, the CF field is well known for publishing their own stuff after 'within the group' peer review, i.e. after highly pro-biased reviewing.
Who do you think you are?
I am an equivalently trained chemist with research experience is several relevant areas to the 'cold fusion' arena. Fleischmann's pedigree is not substantially different or better than mine. His publication record is better, because he went the academic route, while I went the industrial one. That usually means he would get at least 10X the publications that I do. However, that does not guarantee the correctness of said publications. Furthermore, if you'd ever read what I write, you'd understand that my view is that the whole field of CF pre-2002 was caught by an unrecognized systematic error. The failure came when they ignored my discovery and proceeded as if I was wrong.