Noticed recevied @ 1.15pm., page-47

Yes, but if there was reduced mortality in the whole group, and the trial researchers had a clear suspicion as to why (better overall trauma care, lower quality bullets) the you'd guess they wouldn't mention it. You would also HOPE that if the reduced mortality rate was not statistically significant, they wouldn't mention it. You would hop that the mortality rate is significant enough so that by the time they crunch through another 90 patients reversion to the mean is unlikely and they won't end up with egg on their face.

I know there's a fine line between Bayesian analysis and wishful thinking in this case, but I'm prepared to believe that this pushes the likelihood slightly in the direction of trial success. But I would't expect anyone to agree with me.

If we accept the premise that NEU management aren't stupid, then it's interesting to speculate why they'd mention the lower mortality rate in the first place. Presumably because it puts a positive spin on things. A wise thing to do or potentially foolish? I don't know but (with appropriate scepticism) I regard it as useful information.