When expressing views is risky for some individuals, a general approach for resistance is for public comment to be made by those who are least vulnerable and for those who are most vulnerable to become leakers — allies who are silent in public but provide information confidentially or make public statements using pseudonyms.
On many social issues, ranging from genetic engineering to national security, there are fierce debates, but one side has a monopoly on expert opinion. When dissident experts speak up, they are susceptible to various forms of attack in their workplace. Meanwhile, citizen campaigners, who can become quite knowledgeable about the issues, lack insider information. In such situations, the insider experts, rather than speaking up, can be more effective by keeping a low profile and feeding information to outside activists.
This is very similar to the situation for many whistle-blowers. A typical whistleblower is an employee who discovers evidence suggesting corruption, abuse or hazards to the public and who reports the potential problem, most commonly to the boss or others inside the organisation. When the problem implicates higher management, a common response is to target the whistleblower with reprisals, for example ostracism (the cold shoulder), petty harassment, reprimands, referral to psychiatrists, demotion and dismissal. In most cases, whistleblowers are ineffective in bringing about change in the organisation.
It is often far more effective for whistleblowers to remain anonymous and to provide information to journalists or action groups, who can use the information to raise wider awareness. This is the method of leaking. By remaining anonymous, the whistleblower avoids reprisals, can remain on the job and collect additional information.
[…]
The information to be provided obviously should not be confidential information about patients, but rather about practices and beliefs at the workplace, perhaps including cases of apparent adverse effects of vaccination that are not reported officially. Insiders also can make statements for publication using a pseudonym, thereby contributing to public debate with less risk of reprisals.
One of the things insiders can tell outside campaigners is how better to pitch arguments and organise actions. Insiders could offer comments on drafts of blog posts, media releases and articles, make suggestions for campaigns and give running feedback on the impact of campaigning efforts. For example, suppose vaccine critics proposed to hand out leaflets to prospective mothers and fathers. Insiders could report on the response to the leaflets by the prospective parents and by hospital workers.
[…]
In summary, when vaccine critics are under hostile surveillance and harassment via complaints, it makes sense to reduce vulnerabilities in two main ways. First, citizen campaigners are safer to organise as networks rather than as associations subject to government regulations, thereby reducing the number of ways they can be targeted by complaints to authorities. Second, individuals working in the health system or in any other role subject to professional controls may find it safer to keep a low profile publicly and to supply information and advice to citizen campaigners.
Insider critics always have the option of going public, and may decide to do this when they retire, leave for a different career or move to another country, namely when reprisals are less potent. Public expression of dissent is still likely to lead to denigration, so this needs to be taken into account.
– Vaccination Panic in Australia (2018), pp. 221-4