I'm in Utah and I remember the Cold Fusion debacle. The people involved were prestigious and the publication of the work was in peer reviewed journals. The issue was debunked but only because there did not seem to be reliable confirmations. Note, however, that there were always numerous, reputable albeit somewhat unreliable and unrepeatable confirmations. There was not zero ability to confirm. The problem was that confirmations were spotty and never became less so. Money DID flow to try to firm things up. Success at that was never achieved.
I suggest a similar criteria here. Money. Who funded this research? Will they get more money for more -- and this is critical -- will it come from the US fusion research budget. That proved to be a huge issue with Cold Fusion. The big hot fusion projects in the Eastern US burn up hundreds of millions of dollars. If these guys persuade a money diversion, a lot of big projects with big pre-emplaced hot fusion empires are enormously threatened.
This isn't about fusion as an energy source. The thing runs at room temp. That means any fusion reaction is quenched immediately. At most, this device might be good for a neutron source for diagnostic testing purposes. That's it. It's a small niche market item. Right now, the beaker's output is 3x the background radiation around you now.