"The info you are using seems to be released (2016/11/16) more than a year after the meeting (July 2015)."
It SEEMS to be, but it's not. You just finished telling may that "the crowd here is minimal work crowd" and then you proceeded to conclude that IPIX issued a press release in November of 2016 that said "In July 2015, at an End-of-Phase 2 Meeting, Cellceutix and FDA discussed data supporting advancement of brilacidin into Phase 3" when Bertolino had announced that it had been shelved in July of 2016.
You reached that conclusion by the date in the link that I provided which included "2016/11/16" in its url. Even though it made absolutely no sense you chose not to look at the link itself, which would have told you that the info I was using was from a press release dated November 10, 2015 (which happened to be the first time the EOP2 meeting was discussed and IN WHICH THE NUMBER OF TRIAL PARTICIPANTS WAS provided).
The reason for the date problem, which had nothing whatsoever to do with the issues discussed in the post, is that the Company created a new website in December of 2016 and "loaded" many if not all of the older press releases into it en masse. The November 2016 date appears in a LARGE number of those links.
"Otherwise, I do agree with you that IPIX could have done (and should do) far better job of releasing and managing information."
Otherwise, sure. The Company failed to meet its own stated expectation and the preferred state of mind is to put it in the rear view mirror. They STILL haven't provided the trial size and safety info as you noted, but "move along, nothing to see here" seems to be the consensus sentiment.
Expectations seem noticeably lower.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
