“So in one instance, "main stream" is full of crap because they do not support my view of LENR, but then one will accept everything main stream says about something else IF it supports my view!”
Indeed, almost everyone accepts and trusts mainstream science except those aspects of it that interfere with whatever specific unorthodox views they might hold.
In the case of cold fusion there is confusion over what constitutes mainstream science. I define mainstream science as what is published in respected, peer-reviewed journals by leading academic scientists. By that standard, cold fusion is as mainstream as you can get. There are hundreds of papers describing cold fusion replications, but only three papers calling these replications into question. Those three have no merit, in my opinion. Read this one and decide for yourself:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanreplytothe.pdf
There are, of course, many other peer-reviewed papers saying that cold fusion violates theory so it cannot exist. This is a violation of the scientific method. There are some experimental papers describing methods that Fleischmann and other experts thought were mistaken, such as the NHE analysis. There were many informal critiques outside the literature in places like academic conferences, but I do not think they have merit. See pages 25 to 36 here:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/RothwellJreviewofth.pdf
Other than those three peer-reviewed papers, most opposition to cold fusion has been in two places: the lunatic fringe such as Wikipedia, written by ignorant trolls. And in outrageous ad hominem columns in places like the Washington Post, Scientific American and New Scientist. This is as far from science as anything can be. See, for example:
https://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/MalloveEclassicnas.pdf
Overall, there is no legitimate mainstream opposition to cold fusion, and there never has been. What we see instead is a great deal of illegitimate, unfounded, ignorant opposition. Much of it comes from professional scientists, but these scientists know nothing about the subject, as you see from reading them. A scientist who knows nothing about a subject cannot judge it. Nothing he says can have any merit. To call such grotesque ignorance "mainstream science" is rob the term "science" of all meaning. It is like saying a person who knows nothing about football, who has never watched a game, and does not even know the rules, (me -- in other words) is magically qualified to referee the Super Bowl.