I think it's because they don't manage their optics very well in terms of straddling soliciting donations and commercializing a product — it seems like they want to be a non-profit and a commercial venture at the same time which for many is an immediate red flag. I don't think anyone is calling them a scam but it doesn't pass a smell test.
I'm not saying they are fraudulent, but that dubiousness combined with their PR guy selectively answering questions on here rubbed people the wrong way.
There are three things that I think Hough Ear Institute have handled quite negatively and poorly with their dissemination of information relating to their medicines.
1. Avoiding answering questions on why they have proceeded with completing the proof of concept study work for their pill when they need to obtain more money in order to complete the post study verification of the work.
2. Avoiding explaining who is going to be the ultimate beneficiaries from the sales of any successful medicines.
3. Not answering matters on why they need to solicit donations to proceed with work and what such money will get used for.
Hough Ear Institute seemed to get a lot of hate on this thread. But they did win a grant from the Department of Defense among 73 other competitors. So they're either really good at grant writing or they have some solid science behind the pill.
Keep the faith.
No matter how good an idea is, it won't get the support it needs from other sources if they cannot communicate clearly, informatively and transparently with those that are being asked to help.
Have a look at situations with other companies such as Bouqs Flowers or Echo Valley Meats from the Shark Tank. Both entities pitched their products to the investor group and were turned down because they were not satisfied with the way the product had been demonstrated to them nor with the reasons given to them by the organisations' representatives as to why they should invest.
It could be that Hough Ear Institute has a great product which turns out to be wonderful, however if they do not put things forward appropriately and do not adequately engage in open communication they are not likely to garner the support they require and/or desire too.
Thus Hough Ear Institute might be really good at writing grants or they might simply be very poor at communicating with and addressing the questions that are put to them by potential donors such as members of the public.
Either way there still seems to be legitimate concerns held by people about what they are doing and their way of going about doing it which has led to some individual's apathy towards the organisation.