I agree with Dr Nagler that your entire premise is flawed. In what other industry would you apply this to?!
We expect Budweiser to promote drinking responsibly, not the manufacturers of dialysis machines treating liver disease from alcohol abuse! Your expectation of 'protect your hearing' campaigns should be on the people producing loud damaging noises in the first place.
Let me provide a bit of insight on this particular subject.
Here is what the good doctor on this forum wrote in one of his posts:
They aim a "healing light" into your ear canal with the idea that it is supposed to make sick (or dead) hair cells healthy again. Problem is ... the ear canal has twists and turns, the hair cells are in the cochlea which is located at the other end of the ear canal, and the cochlea is encased in bone. So there's no way that the "healing light" can reach its intended target without burning a hole in your temporal bone!
Now compare that statement with the diagram below - which is cold laser light at 80 mW penetrating approximately 1 cm of bone (my finger):
Disproving what Dr. Nagler said is therefore quite easy.
On page 3 of this 2004 newsletter from the ATA, you will find that Dr. Nagler is listed as part of the scientific advisory board of the ATA (a position he held for 7 years; chairman for 2):
http://www.ata.org/sites/ata.org/files/pdf/September_2004_Tinnitus_Today.pdf
In the same newsletter, you will find that TRT is advocated on page 12. On page 21, you will find the "research" section - and yes, 10 years(!) ago, there was a mention of LLLT's potential effectiveness. Why not explore that possiblity further - wouldn't that be a job for a neutral organzation such as the ATA? Well, not if you are biased to begin with...
And notice the General Hearing Aids ad on page 24 (in a "neutral" newsletter such as the ATA). General Hearing Aids is the company Dr. Nagler later on held a senior position at...
And if you want to see the effect of LLLT, check out the audiograms in my introduction, as well as that of a few other members here on the board.
Here is an article/patent about Flupirtine from 2001/2002 in relation to treating tinnitus - already back then, there were indications that certain potassium modulators might be effective against tinnitus (a precursor to AUT00063):
https://www.google.com/patents/WO2002015907A1?cl=de
That's more than 10 years ago. Why was that never investigated further...?
I don't know where the problem is. But I know that there is a "problem" somewhere...