As I pointed out, there will be no arrest if there is no-one available to perform it. You can envision a robot world where human police are not needed, but obviously that has not been achieved, not even close. To get there, you’ll still need humans to maintain the robots, unless you get self-maintaining robots, but then you’ll probably want humans to keep an eye on the robots anyway, in case the robots decide getting rid of you would be beneficial to their maintenance. (Which they will, sooner or later.)
Of course medical experiments were carried out. You have an easy case there. I told you so very recently:
The problem is that masks were not and are not experimental devices (duh), and masking as public policy was only an experiment in the same sense that just about any public policy that hasn’t been tried before (or has but not recently) is an experiment. Whether or not it is a bad policy does not determine whether or not it qualifies as a medical experiment. You can argue a policy is harmful, but citing the Code won’t get anywhere with that one (masks) in a serious court. Sorry but no. You can still fight it, just not the way you’re proposing to.
If by that you mean I think they are equivalent to each other in their goodness or badness, you are extremely Wrong.
As any erudite person should be able to tell from my post, I put them in the same category as far as applicability of the Code is concerned, for the reason I already articulated. The point is they are not
they are instead
public policy decisions that had a nexus with medicine.
Remember this? Try rereading it now and then.
Why are you talking to me as if disagreeing with you about one aspect of the mask issue means I must disagree with you about all aspects of the mask issue? If two legs good, four legs bad, and if four legs good, two legs bad?
I can’t debate under these conditions.
If you can’t wrap your head around the way I explain things after I’ve tried explaining them multiple times, one conclusion says I’m a bad speaker, another says you’re a bad listener, and there are many others in between, but all of them are variations of the meta-conclusion that we are not compatible conversation partners on any vaguely adversarial matter, and there’s no alternative to that one.
Why are you asking me? I’m not even a citizen of your planet! Good luck though. 
And just in the off chance you’ve forgotten what the context was, I. Was. Not. Defending. Mask. Mandates. Scroll up and you’ll see the context.
Have a nice day, both of you. 