b) if there is something worth publishing then it could likely be worth knowing as far as buying at these levels goes. 

This is where we enter the murky waters on the definition of "material information".  Insider trading rules disallow anyone in receipt of non-publicly disclosed material information to trade the stock.  Everything sounds reasonably understandable in that rule, perhaps except for the word "material".

Materiality is also an essential part of the definition of material nonpublic information. The nonpublic information must be significant enough to change the price of a company's stock. If a checkout clerk working for a large company learns that their hours are going to be reduced next month, that is nonpublic information; however, it is not material because it will not move the stock price.

Who determines (or has final say) whether certain information would be "significant" or "material" enough to move a given stock?  Only a securities lawyer or a Judge I guess.  With Resverlogix insider trading, I could see that it would be very difficult to argue that collected data from a P2 trial that wasn't even completed could consititute "stock moving" information if made public.   I'm more inclined to think that yet-undisclosed data would have to be "success-confirming" data from a completed NDA-pending P3 trial.  Just my two cents.

To the poster who asked about pre-announcing market buys, the answer is the insiders are not required to pre-announce their trading.  Only a company's 'stock buy-back' plans/intentions have to be pre-announced.