Ah, against my better judgment I read the response again, but I promise that's my last one! First, way to go in a complete tangent without talking about the original topic, good job! Then to answer the question: the plasma scientist that left was Lowell Morgan. He was part of the original team, even published papers, then saw it was going nowhere.

I've seen many intelligent and interesting discussions about this topic, unfortunately, this cannot be one here. One of your first responses showed you had no idea about the theories you were saying were completely wrong. So clearly you were just repeating what someone said without knowing why. Again the very thing you accused me of. By the way, nice mushroom cloud picture. But it's fission, you wanted fusion. I know the words sound kind of similar, but they are quite different. But the worst part is that it's unfortunately very obvious you don't even understand the ideas you are defending. You're just parroting them, and incorrectly. For instance you completely missed the point of the ionized gas streams. We know that the vast majority of the universe is plasma, nobody said otherwise. So you don't understand it, obviously you can't see its flaws. And you also forgot that even if you ignore all the other problems, you'd still end up with only spiral galaxies. True they are predominant, but there's still 40% of other types...
Since you claim to be familiar with Electric Universe, I hope you at least know its evolution. At first, they said gravity didn't exist (60s or maybe 50s even). Of course people asked how come a charged object falls the same as a neutral one? "Yeah, okay, there is gravity but it's small." Then they took some of the actually interesting works of plasma cosmology (citing papers and scientists that everybody ever interested in the topic knows doesn't bring any new information btw), misinterpreted it (knowingly or unknowingly?) and without any shred of proof or corroboration connected it to the original stuff. Of course there was still something like "gravity cannot create the fusion conditions...". Alright, how do you explain neutrinos then, that we can predict and measure? " yeah, actually, there is fusion, but at the sun surface". Okay, even if we ignore the improbable conditions for fusion at the surface, what happens to the gamma rays? And that's when I just stopped following. Maybe they stole something else from the theories they first declared completely wrong, maybe not, I don't care anymore.
And last, this notion that mainstream always attacks the alternatives. They don't attack, it's just normal science process. You start with a theory, you confront it to observation, experiment and maths (even if I know EU doesn't like maths) and you try your best to disprove it! You refine it, you get new data, etc... Scientists do that every day with 'mainstream', they keep putting them to the test with new data and observations, from new telescopes for instance, and more modern and powerful equipment. But somehow when they do the same for alternatives and they don't hold water, it's just 'attack'...
Anyways, I'll repeat it, in the past I've seen interesting discussions about this (plasma cosmology is indeed interesting) but that really ain't it here, not possible unfortunately and I will not read any response because so far none of them brought any new information.