You are asking whether any here, on this site, is willing to say that a fundamental theory ... is wrong whereas I am asking about whether the community will say it is wrong.
Actually my emphasis is on claims rather than theories. Claims come first, theories follow.
For example, consider the many theories that have been published in order to explain the Rossi's claims.
In one of the many documents aimed at explaining LENR, two authors from University of Budapest wrote (1): "The electron assisted neutron exchange processes in pure Ni, Pd and Li−Ni composite systems (in the Rossi-type E-Cat) are analyzed and it is concluded that the electron assisted neutron exchange reactions in pure Ni and Li − Ni composite systems may be responsible for recent experimental observations." – This specific theory is accompanied by many graphs and 103 formulas. May be all of them are formally correct, but if its purpose is to explain the Rossi's results, this theory is useless, it has nothing to do with reality. Why? Well, because Rossi's claims are wrong, so no theory is required to explain them.
The same holds for the BSM-SG model presented by a member of Canadian university (2), and for many other theories and models aimed to explain the Rossi's claims.
Now, look at this presentation by MIT (3). The first two rows in the table at page 44 report some claims of the major LENR researchers. Rossi and friends are not included, of course. We all know why: their claims about LENR are unreliable. But the list starts with F&P. Problem: are their claims more reliable than Rossi's? The answer can be easily obtained by looking carefully at their own documentation on the "1992 boil-off experiment".
However, and this is the basic question, are anybody here willing to look carefully at this documentation, thus questioning the F&P reliability?
(1) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.01474.pdf
(2) http://gsjournal.net/Science-J…e%20Physics/Download/4805
(3) https://arpa-e.energy.gov/site…orkshop_Metzler_Final.pdf