There are far more outstanding (than hydrinos) blunders in the standard model. In 50 years people will laugh about some nobels given for bare bullshit theories, without any physical background.
Perhaps you could elucidate (without FUD) these non-hydrino blunders. Stating in detail how you know some alternate theory corresponds better to physical reality with references? There are enough physicists doing this properly and publishing decent papers on it: I don't think words on this blog get us very far!