> The very first thing this article says is the data is from a cyberattack on European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the data was sent anonymously to journalists.

> The very first thing this article says is the data is from a cyberattack on European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the data was sent anonymously to journalists. It could just as likely be a hacker acting out of altruism, similarly to the one who broke into that italian company a few years ago. If someone didn't trust that the megacorp was acting in good faith, what they did here is probably the most effective (though morally ambiguous) way to hold them accountable. The only question now is, are we going to brush their work aside without examination, blithely labelling it "misinformation", without any further thought?