No, the brain in the vat premise implies that this is not possible. For us to be brains in vats, it is implied that someone created this situation. It is impossible that the person who created it was just hallucinating or else there would not be us, as brains in vats. You can understand this situation with dreams. It is possible that I am in a dream right now, but it is impossible that I am in someone else's dream.

I don't think we can for the reason that there must exist, as Metaphysician Undercover posited, a being, call it X, that gets its hands on the information that can help it make the distinction but if X is anything like us the information must pass through a set-up of sensory apparatuses and then we're back to square one - this being could be just another one of us being fed false information of it could be an actual human being suffering from hallucinations.
— TheMadFool

It's not a matter of this person getting hands on the information, it's a matter of this person necessarily all ready knowing the difference (having the information) as prerequisite for the brain in vat scenario, being the intentional creator of the conditions. So you need to ask whether it's possible for the brain in vat scenario to exist without a creator. But the description, as brain in vat, implies that there is a creator. You could go to some other description, like "simulation hypothesis", but that also implies a creator.

I think it would be very difficult to come up with a compatible theory, which did not require a creator to create the proposed scenario. And if your scenario requires a creator, the creator has the necessary information. Also take notice that this information need not pass through sensory apparatus. When we create something, the idea for that thing, the plan, exists prior to the physical existence of that thing. So the creator dreams up the idea, figures out how to put the plan into action, and then does so, without ever having sensed the thing which is being created. An omniscient being (one which cannot be mistaken) can set up a time delayed scenario, leave the scene, and have all the information to know about what is going on in that scenario without ever sensing it. — Metaphysician Undercover

Consider the following three scenarios:

1. I'm the evil genius, call me X, who's got everybody as brains in vats in my lab. I visit my lab everyday and make sure everything's functioning smoothly - the nutrient bath and the supercomputer generating the simulation are at the top of my list of priorities.

2. I'm not the evil genius, X, but actually a brain in a vat being fed false information that I am X.

3. I'm an actual human being hallucinating the whole thing (that I'm X).

All the data that goes into letting me know which of the three scenarios above is true comes through my senses and my senses (like everybody's senses) as we already know, can't be trusted. Ergo, I can't know if I'm the evil genius X or an actual human hallucinating that I'm X or a brain in a vat being fed a simulation that I'm X.

Basically, these three scenarios are indiscernible and this'll be true no matter what you do to wriggle out of the situation.

Basically, these three scenarios are indiscernible and this'll be true no matter what you do to wriggle out of the situation. — TheMadFool

No they are not the same, by the very fact that they are described with three very distinct descriptions. If you cannot see the difference between these three distinct descriptions, I'm tired of explaining it to you.

No they are not the same, by the very fact that they are described with three very distinct descriptions. If you cannot see the difference between these three distinct descriptions, I'm tired of explaining it to you. — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes, I agree and I admitted to that fact - the 3 scenarios do differ but the problem and point is they can't be discerned as so. There's a difference, yes, but this difference is not knowable.