The problem I have with this analysis is that ITER is an experiment designed by physicists and not a power plant as it doesn't produce electricity. It is clearly designed to have extra measurement, calibration, monitoring, and safety equipment. This extra gear uses power. The data collected from ITER, good and bad, will be used to refine the next designs on the way to making a power plant. The criticism from the CF/LENR community of ITER is expected. Once fusion is proven to work in a controlled manner by physicists, what little longshot, 1 in 100+ chance, funding for CF/LENR that remains will disappear.
That is hardly correct. ITER-style fusion would be v large scale. Even the proposed much smaller fusion reactors (an outside chance, just like LENR, except the issues are technological and fairly quickly resolved as breakers or OK) are still pretty big. Whereas LENR if it ever lived up to the promise would allow small-scale cheap power.
So the reason LENR enthusiasts are so dismissive of hot fusion is not I think competition. More it is that hot fusion, though difficult and unclear in terms of final outcome, has clear science backing it with scientific results continuing to emerge. I think that, and the apparent inequity of massive funding for hot fusion, makes LENR enthusiasts unhappy, and the shrill condemnation relates to that.