Warren Tredrea wrongful dismissal lawsuit: Professor claims requiring Covid vaccination in order to work like “forcing them to undergo a medical procedure”

The doctor backing Warren Tredrea’s $5.7m lawsuit says he’s not a Covid vaccine mandate critic – despite his public reference to Nazi war crimes.

Warren Tredrea is suing Channel 9 for more than $5m in future earnings. Picture: Russell Millard

A doctor backing Warren Tredrea’s $5.7m lawsuit against Channel 9 says he is not a “vocal critic” of vaccine mandates – despite his public comments evoking Nazi Germany and the Nuremberg war trials.

On Tuesday, Professor Nikolai Petrovsky took the stand to give evidence in Tredrea’s wrongful dismissal lawsuit.

Previously, the court has heard Tredrea sought to be part of the trial for Professor Petrovsky’s self-developed, rival vaccine prior to being fired by Nine.

Professor Nikolai Petrovsky, right. Picture: Dean Martin

On Tuesday, Professor Petrovsky agreed that he equated requiring a person to be vaccinated in order to work with forcing them to undergo a medical procedure.

“I’m not saying that the employer is strong-arming the person and injecting them themselves, but there’s an element of coercion interfacing with informed consent,” he said.

“That compulsion technically invalidates informed consent … as a doctor, as I understand the law, I would have to refuse to administer the vaccine.”

Nine’s barrister, Brendon Roberts KC, suggested Professor Petrovsky was “a vocal critic of vaccine mandates”.

“You said ‘we have the Nuremberg code, I mean the Nazis did not take informed consent, as a consequence a number of them were executed after the war’,” he said.

Professor Petrovsky said he “would not use the term vocal critic”.

“I didn’t hear the term ‘vaccine mandate’ in that statement you read, I heard discussion of informed consent – which is a very important concept for me,” he said.

“What I am is someone who says (vaccines and mandates) are tools we should be very, very careful (about) before we implement.

“I don’t believe that classifies me as a vocal critic, just someone who’s trying to explain the science.”

Tredrea outside court. Picture: Russell Millard

Tredrea shares a legal team with nurse and AFLW player Deni Varnhagen, who challenged the Covid mandate last year. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Brenton Edwards

Tredrea has asked the court to award him $5,775,000 – representing 30 years of pay for the missed opportunity of employment – claiming he was wrongfully dismissed.

He claims Nine’s Covid policy was unreasonable, based on his understanding of the virus and vaccines, including the risk of adverse vaccine reactions.

On Monday, he told the court he was unfairly fired from his “dream job” despite “breaking more stories” than colleagues who won awards “off the back of me”.

Professor Petrovsky, who held an academic position at Flinders University, previously declined to take any vaccine other than his – which was not approved for use in Australia.

Last year, he gave evidence in nurse and AFLW footballer Deni Varnhagen’s challenge to the state’s vaccination mandates, which was dismissed.

Tredrea is represented by the same legal team that acted for Ms Varnhagen.

On Tuesday, Professor Petrovsky said his tenure with Flinders University was “not renewed” and had “completed this year”.

He said he had now been vaccinated with a dose “approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia”.

Professor Petrovsky denied he started criticising the government after his funding bid was denied, saying he had “always raised questions” about vaccine safety and efficacy.

But Mr Roberts suggested he had publicly described Australia’s vaccination-approval process as “not based on merit, opaque and highly dubious”, and questioned whether “money had changed hands”.

“I don’t recall those exact words … Covid-19 was a highly emotional and stressful time for us all, I may well have used those terms,” he replied.

Mr Roberts asked if Professor Petrovsky and Tredrea had discussed describing government-approved vaccines as “trial” or “experimental”.

Those terms, the court heard on Monday, are associated with the anti-vaxxer movement – in his evidence, Tredrea denied he is an anti-vaxxer.

“I don’t recall a conversation with Mr Tredrea, I don’t recall having a conversation with Mr Tredrea, I don’t recall any conversation with Mr Tredrea,” Professor Petrovsky replied.

He denied he had a “vital self-interest” in Tredrea’s case, saying he was simply “in the best position” to provide evidence to the court.

He also denied being a “conscientious objector” to vaccines, saying he advocated for their “use in the appropriate context”, based on the “risk-benefit” to individuals and their health.

The trial continues.