Now you've made two completely mystifying posts in a row... Care to try for a hat trick?
Could you explain what you're getting at with your first post? Are you saying that the trial can't be double blind if they know some of the outcomes before the trial is finished? But it makes no difference as long as the blinding isn't lifted for cases still in progress. In fact an important element of quality control is to monitor the trial's execution so issues can be detected early, or a decision can be made to abort the trial early if necessary. The medical trial of Vincristine/Vinblastine for Hodgkin's lymphoma was aborted early because the results were so compelling that it was deemed unethical to keep people on placebo when an effective, life-saving treatment was clearly available. Without early analysis of unblinded cases this decision couldn't have been made.
Also your use of the word "outstanding" is quite ambiguous. Do you mean it in the sense of "not yet available" or "extremely good"? Your question about "what this means" doesn't really make sense either way. Does it have to mean anything?
I'm guessing English isn't your first language. You're not expressing yourself very clearly, I'm sorry, and you seem to be drawing conclusions from the things you read that don't appear to be justifiable inferences. Having read a great many of
@Gapeseed 's posts I'm convinced he has a pretty good grasp of a double blind trial.
