Ummm… no. In IRB applications and informed consent documents you have to be very clear and specific about who you might share their data with under what circumstances. And these documents tend to be legally binding. So this editorial is kind of nutty. To give you an idea, this is kind of like asking banks to release customer account data to the public.
IRBs implement the law. Here in the Netherlands the law specifically has exceptions for releasing data if it's in the interest of public health. It's weighed against other concerns of course but it's not impossible
Are citizen biostatisticians going to verify the data and post about how everything checks out? That is quite naive seeing how the data from VAERS is being presented totally out of context in intellectually dishonest ways. Aside: the big problem with VAERS is that you do not have a denominator. Not to mention reporting biases, and the abysmal quality and assessment value of reports.
Even if you did have some cadre if motivated, ethical citizen biostatisticians any type of post hoc analysis would be suspect and epistemologically weaker than the original statistical analysis because it would have been designed with prior knowledge of the data.
Compare to the original study where the statistical analysis plan was prospectively designed and publicly disclosed BEFORE any patient enrollment or data collection.