Professor says vaccines prevent serious Covid illness, but weaker in preventing Covid infection, transmission

A key witness for police opposing mandatory Covid-19 vaccination has denied claiming current vaccines were ineffective and waging a “campaign of misinformation’’.

A witness in the case of more than 70 police and ambulance officers challenging Covid-19 vaccine mandates has denied engaging in a campaign of misinformation about approved vaccines in Australia.

Professor of Medicine Nikolai Petrovsky, who is developing a Covid-19 vaccine, said in his Supreme Court report he said current vaccines were effective in preventing serious illness or death.

But he said they were much weaker at preventing infection and community transmission.

The first legal challenge to mandatory Covid-19 vaccination, by more than 60 police and 13 ambulance officers, began with a Brisbane Supreme Court trial on Monday.

Professor Nikolai Petrovsky leaves the Brisbane Supreme Court. Prof Petrovsky gave evidence in a trial challenging mandatory Covid vaccination by more than 70 police and ambulance officers. Picture: Dan Peled

Prof Petrovsky, a key witness for the police applicants who want the Police Commissioner’s vaccination direction overturned, provided a report commenting on other Covid-19 vaccine studies.

Counsel for the Commissioner and Queensland Ambulance Service, Michael Hodge QC, put to Prof Petrovsky that he was in some cases deliberately misleading in some of his comparisons. He disagreed.

“In the case of preparing your reports you would have been prepared to say anything that you think you might be able to get away with, to disparage vaccines in Australia,’’ Mr Hodge put to the witness.

“I totally reject that,” Prof Petrovsky replied, saying he had pointed out the strengths of all the vaccines against preventing serious illness, hospitalisation and death.

“Unfortunately, they haven’t delivered the same benefits in terms of protection against infection and transmission.’’

Mr Petrovsky said as a vaccine developer he was not trying to impugn provisionally approved vaccines, but care was needed in stating facts about them.

He said the Therapeutic Goods Administration did not fully know all the risks, including myocarditis and pericarditis, at the time vaccines used in Australia were provisionally approved.

Mr Hodge put to Prof Petrovsky that throughout his report he had sought to advance the case he had been making publicly for some time, that vaccines approved in Australia were ineffective.

“I dispute that completely,’’ Prof Petrovsky said.

“Obviously I acknowledge the effectiveness of the vaccines in my report at multiple places.

“But I’ve identified there are some things that they are claimed to do which unfortunately they are much weaker at doing, including preventing infection and community transmission.

“But I acknowledge that they are very effective at preventing seriousness of disease, which is the major reason to use them.’’

The trial is continuing.