Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not the case among infosec professionals either. Many respected professionals believe that the right thing to do in many cases is full public disclosure. Google Project Zero are a notable example.
Google Project Zero does not support full public disclosure immediately- quite the opposite. They support full public disclosure after giving the vendor an opportunity to ship a fix to their customers in a reasonable period of time. Nobody's debating whether or not security flaws should be publicly disclosed- of course they should. The only debate is, what is the most responsible way to handle such a security issue s…
Furthermore, that deadline is 7 days if they are aware of active exploitation.
DJB is famous for his full disclosure with no advanced warning stance.
The rest of your post is false. That is your opinion, and people disagree. I'm going to guess you have not personally spoken with folks from project zero. I have spoken with some of them. And trust me, they would not agree with your statement. A few of them even feel strongly that their timelines are far too generous. I also understand their reasoning, and it has nothing to do with ego or publicity, and everything to do with concern for users.
They do not give a shit about credit beyond believing that it is proper to cite the authors of any work. That isn't the case for everyone finding bugs, but people on that team lost the novelty of having their name on bug reports long ago.