The scientific method requires formation of hypotheses based on observations. Those hypotheses are then experimentally tested. The present study includes relevant observations that absolutely support a hypothesis that PBA may be a wider spectrum of disorders. Not sure why you'd call this aspect unscientific.
Otherwise, as I agreed in my last post there is a positive bias. Clearly saying "highlight DMQ as a potent pharmacotherapy" is overstepping their results.
The "deserves consideration for the management" is (probably purposefully) ambiguous. It could mean that the hypothesis should be tested and I'd agree. It could be a suggestion to use it off-label which would be unjustified.