> We can't be so confident until we actually have clean, accessible, usable databases. And then you'd question who put that data there, and whether it was real

> We can't be so confident until we actually have clean, accessible, usable databases. And then you'd question who put that data there, and whether it was real. It's impossible to never take anything on any level of trust. When your scenarios get more and more elaborate (a secret worldwide conspiracy to push vaccines? we can't even cooperate on simple stuff), at some point you have to ask yourself, "Is my skepticism driven by real information, or by what-ifs?" That's how you distinguish conspiracy theories from not: what prompted the question? Not that an increase in open data would ever be a bad thing. But it's a huge logistical challenge, and it shouldn't be required for something this well-known.