when not if for pab now, page-17

Muppet, you are nearly but not quite right. I didn't want to hear an ill-formed opinion and I don't think howls of derision would be helpful but I do feel the need to give a brief critique of your post! Perhaps you could consider having another (closer) read (reads) of the paper. You will see the authors have addressed points you have raised and qualified the nature of the study.

I cannot see sufficient data in this paper to support alternate hypotheses on what is "far more likely to explain the survival difference". I can see the authors were far more cautious in their use of language ..."However, given the disparity of the stages between the treatment and control groups it is not possible to draw conclusions on the survival benefit"

The path to IgM based therapy is in it's early stages and as the authors clearly state "Given there is an increasing amount of data indicating IgM antibodies are suitable therapeutic agents, further research is needed in order to advance this class of antibodies for use in the clinic."
That is precisely what Amgen are doing with PAB's SM6 and I am confident that the design of that trial will be more than academic.

The abstract I have, with link to the full paper, shows "Published online on: Monday, January 20, 2014". Where did you get the 10th of January from?

I think the science, the scientists and the management team behind PAB are of a higher standard and deserving of more credit than you gave.