You may want to look into the Doctor's Trial at Nuremberg for why governments cannot be trusted to make decisions for citizens in the name of "public health".
> may want to look into the Doctor's Trial at Nuremberg for why governments cannot be trusted to make decisions for citizens in the name of "public health"
The Nuremberg trials are about why governments and people cannot be trusted, period.
This isn't about trust. It's about what requires individual consent, and for what groups can consent collectively. When medicine is individually administered, best practice is informed consent. But when substances are collectively administered (or removed), and this ranges from water sanitation to fluoridation to mandated fortification to factory pollutants you get to breathe, we have deep precedents that say it's fine to ask the group together and skip individual consent.
That doesn't mean this is fine. (The risk-reward seems skewed to the left when eradication of malaria-carrying species is on the table.) The argument is simply flawed. We simply do not get individual consent every time an artificial substance is introduced into peoples' bodies.
