We're trying to make it to profitability so we can get to the point where we can test the solution in humans who have neurodegeneration. When you're dealing with incredibly complex regulatory environments and millions of dollars in development costs, it's not always easy to make it from point A to point B. That's the point of this post.
Seems like the alternative here is to do nothing, so finding a productive but realistic path forward is a better alternative. I think it's clearly wrong to call running studies in animals "pushing it" on anyone.
If you have in-grown hairs, take Viagra once and they'll start coming out in a few hours on their own or with minimal mechanical force. The effect continues for a day or two so I am sure even the secondary metabolites might be somewhat active in inducing this effect.
Seems like a really long diversion from the original goals, doesn't it? "People have problem A and i want to test solution X for effectiveness" was the first principle, right? Now it sounds a lot like "we bought tons of this crap now we've gotta push it somehow"