Main editor’s comment to the paper: the response and survival of children with recurrent diffuse intrinsic pontine glioma based on phase II study of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in patients with brainstem glioma. Stanislaw R. Burzynski, Tomasz J. Janicki, Gregory S. Burzynski, Ania Marszalek
KeywordsPublic Health Brain Tumor Therapeutic Option General Problem Scientific Information
The paper has been accepted for publication with the intent of provoking a discussion addressing two main points: the first of them is obviously the scientific content of the article and, more in general, the effectiveness of the propounded treatment; the second point concerns a more relevant and general problem, that is, the situation that parents of children with brain tumor have to face when they are told that the lesion is not curable. Indeed, we have to deal not only with the delivery of a scientific information but also with the emotions and the limits of the concerned families to fully understand the validity of the therapeutic options that are offered. Indeed, in some cases, the scientists that propose “innovative” or “alternative” treatments complain of the difficulties in diffusing their ideas. A few of them do not even hesitate in evoking the possibility of a kind of plot by the scientific milieu preventing them to publish and, even worse, the sick children to benefit of a therapy.
With the publication of this paper, together with the comment by experts in neuroncology of various continents, the editor intends to demonstrate the absence of a prejudicial attitude, as well as to offer the families of children with diffuse pontine gliomas a more exhaustive information on the propounded therapeutic opportunities, consequently offering them the possibility of a rationale orientation in the choice of the treatment for this still deceiving disease.
Prof. Concezio Di Rocco