“When public space is filled with disinformation, it spreads quickly and overshadows reliable information.”

In your interviews and public appearances, you have repeatedly emphasized and warned about the threats you received as the head of the expert group, together with your colleagues. I am interested in how you experienced these things at the time – where did the threats start, how did they spread, through which channels, online, in the media, in public?

I received most of the threats via email, almost daily. Some were direct and I forwarded them to the police or security service, while others were rude or vulgar. Although it was unpleasant, at first I did not feel threatened—I understood that people were in distress and expressed it in this way. I even communicated with some of them and received a surprisingly human response. 

Occasionally, I also received physical letters with direct death threats. At the time, other people received similar letters as well; we reported the case to the police, and I was given a certain level of protection. Nevertheless, I did not feel very threatened. The posters at demonstrations mostly referred to others, less to me; I thought that, to some extent, I was protected by being an older woman. 

But what affected me the most were the posters and stickers in Ljubljana, near my family’s home. My young relatives saw them; they said I would be killed, and they cried. Such threats, especially those including children, trigger the strongest fear. I only once had the feeling that someone was looking at me angrily, and later a colleague was physically attacked. I felt that this would not happen to me—perhaps naively, but I still felt somewhat protected. 

A lot of the interviewees we’ve already spoken to have emphasized exactly what you mentioned—that responding to threats, comments, or, more broadly, criticism, acted as a kind of mechanism that they found important. I’m interested in why or how you came to this. Why did it seem meaningful to you to respond to these people, to write to them and explain things? 

I saw it as a kind of communication channel that opened up in this way. Why do these things even happen? In my opinion, it’s because there is a gap—between those who are against, who are afraid, who are anxious because of the measures, and us, the experts, who look at things professionally and rationally. Very often, it turns out that the relationship changes when human contact is established. I have this confirmed from numerous experiences, for example with patients—once you talk several times, things change. 

If people communicate with each other, if they know that there is a real person on the other side, the relationship is different. I think it’s connected to that. In addition, I was very motivated for people to understand why something is the way it is, to really explain it to them. I saw it as a kind of mission, if you will. And of course, all these people—regardless of whether they were called anti-vaxxers or whatever—had their own circle. 

You never respond to just one person. That person surely told their family that they received a reply. In some cases, relationships even completely changed, and we still write to each other to this day. In this way, a kind of connection was formed. 

In one of your previous interviews during the pandemic, you mentioned that the threats still had an impact on you. You said that you now regret having softened your public statements at the time, or that a kind of self-censorship occurred. 

I entered the media space completely unprepared, like a non-swimmer thrown into water. The professional part was my field, but when it came to public appearances, I had no tools or support. For a long time, I was alone, without communication experts, so fear could be felt in my statements, which people perceived as a threat. 

Because I was truly afraid, I spoke honestly, but due to the threats, I started to be more reserved and friendly. Today, I see that this was not good, because one learns based on feedback. The content of the messages probably could not have changed significantly, but the manner should have been different. Today, I work much more with public relations experts, and at the chamber, we place great emphasis on how important it is not just what you say, but how you say it. 

I am used to speaking to patients, their relatives, and students, but addressing two million people is something completely different. That’s why my self-censorship was mainly in my restraint—I tried to hide my fear and anger. I also saw that some people could afford to make sharper statements, but I could not. It was expected of me to be reserved, as I am not an authoritative person. In terms of content, however, the messages were clear and direct, for example: ‘Stop going to garages, stop gathering, because it will not end well.’ 

When you mentioned reporting the threats—or when you actually reported them—did you feel that you were doing something useful? Did it make you feel that you might have a better sense of security as a result? 

I did not feel particularly physically threatened. It seemed to me that people needed outlets, and although sometimes worse things happen, my feeling about it was not different. 

Nevertheless, I thought it was wise to report the threats, to try to contain them and prevent escalation. The threats could have been redirected to someone else. Such actions are often carried out by individuals with a lot of frustration, marginalized people who feel they need to do something—whether with reason or not. That’s why it’s important to make it clear to them that certain things are absolutely unacceptable. 

From the perspective of order and society as a whole, I felt it was right to file a report. You never know what might happen, so I also had a certain level of police protection. But if a serious situation were to occur, I doubt they could really help me effectively. 

You mentioned email or electronic messages –  How do threats or disinformation move from one channel to another? For example, they first appear in comments under media articles, then on online forums, then on social networks—and so they jump from channel to channel until they are also expressed in the form of manifestations. Did you notice at the time, or did you or your group deal with this issue—where does it all start and how does it then spread through society? 

The problem with our group was that it was composed mainly of experts from various fields of medicine—public health, infectiology, microbiology, surgery, internal medicine, emergency and family medicine. We covered the professional aspect of managing the epidemic, but we greatly missed professional support in the field of communication. 

Doctors were appointed to this group, and we participated with great interest because we knew this was a moment when we had to help society. At the same time, however, we felt it was essential that communication experts also be involved. Some recognized this—for example, the IT specialists who created Sledilnik—but other professions did not see this as a moment when all efforts should be invested in clear and effective public communication. 

We could not cover this ourselves and expected it would come from the government. At one point, we did get one member who had experience with public relations at the clinical center, but that was just one person, not a team of top communication professionals who would say: ‘This is what we need to communicate, tell us the content, and we’ll take care of the delivery.’ Unfortunately, that did not happen. 

To conclude, I would like to touch on the issue of threats to doctors and healthcare staff in the period after the pandemic, as well as everything that is happening in public today. Do you see any parallels with the problems that arose during the pandemic, for example with the promotion of vaccination? Is this phenomenon connected, or did it transfer from that time to the current situation, or are the reasons for today’s attacks and threats different? As the president of the Medical Chamber, you often point this out yourself. 

We are not seeing this only in our country—it seems that the world has, in a way, gone mad after the pandemic. This is a general observation, but at the same time quite complex. It’s not about individuals, but rather a broader feeling, as if some kind of permission for such behavior has been given. 

One of the reasons is a lack of trust in science and the profession. When people lose trust, the possibility arises that they threatenby experts, since they perceive them as those who cannot help or do not have the right knowledge. Violence has generally increased, wherever we look. The pandemic caused global stress, which was not good. We hoped that after it we would be happier and that we would learn something from it, but unfortunately, that did not happen. 

Could violence or the ultimate manifestations of these phenomena be attributed to the prior threats? In other words, as you already mentioned, did the threats gradually normalize such extreme actions and behaviors? 

I think all of this is connected to a certain extent. If I compare with Europe, we had average, in some areas even relatively mild restrictions, but they were still present. It’s hard to assess how much these restrictions actually triggered resistance, which then transferred to other areas, since people spent a long time at home. 

However, I would say that it’s not directly connected in that way. It’s not a simple anger in the sense of: someone did something to me, now I’ll retaliate. It’s more about a broader social stress that had been building up for a long time—there hadn’t been wars for a long time, but obviously, the tension was accumulating and the pandemic released it. Today, we see this in various forms of violence, from wars to other phenomena around the world. 

Do you think that if there were no social networks, influencers, and digital communication, these processes would have taken place through other channels? Or were social networks and everything connected to them actually the key factor in the escalation and normalization of such phenomena? 

Social networks were definitely a multiplier—of both good and bad. Because we did not pay enough attention to the positive aspects of communication, the negative ones became more prominent. Frightening content can also spread through networks, which is already happening around the world, and this can be very dangerous. This process cannot be stopped, but it can at least be partially limited if we really address it seriously. 

That’s why I believe that public space should be filled with good, relevant, and well-argued information. We do too little in this area. People exchange information, and if mostly bad information is available, it is mainly that which spreads. This also shows that health literacy could be higher—this is one of the findings that shows where we are and where we should do more. The ministry is now preparing a meeting on this topic. 

But besides information and knowledge, there is something else—the pain in a person that triggers hatred. This is much harder to turn around. Recently, a doctor of Slovenian origin who received recognition from the president of the country clearly wrote that hatred must be confronted. This is an important issue, but I don’t know where it actually begins. It is necessary to cultivate goodwill and benevolence. 

---

More conversations