Yes, it contains numerous exceptions for crypto to basically not have to adhere to traditional fraud law.

Correct. Assuming BTC holds any real world value is quite presumptuous.

The vast majority of the world attributes no value whatsoever to such digital abstractions backed by nothing but a self-interested temporary network of nodes that waste obscene amounts of energy in a negative-sum, decentralized Ponzi scheme.

#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #9 (arbitrary claims)

"**Bitcoin is.. ['freedom', 'money without masters', 'world's hardest money', 'the future', 'here to stay', 'Hardest asset known to man', 'Pristine collateral', blah..blah]**" / "**Crypto Will End War**"

  1. Whatever vague, un-qualifiable characteristic you apply to your magic spreadsheet numbers is cute, but just a bunch of marketing buzzwords with no real substance.
  2. That which can be presented without evidence, can also be dismissed without evidence.
  3. Talking in vague abstractions means you can make claims that nobody can actually test to see whether it's TRUE or FALSE. What does it even mean to say "money without masters?" (That's a rhetorical question.. our eyes would roll out of their sockets if you try to answer that.)
  4. Calling something "The future" or "It's here to stay" seems to be more of a prayer or self-help-like affirmation than any statement of fact. The technical term is an *Unstated major premise fallacy*.
  5. The argument that a crypto-based economy will "end war" makes zero sense. No war has ever ended because people ran out of money. Instead they ran out of *resources*. And during times of conflict, it's the use of power to acquire resources, not currency.
  6. George Orwell did it better.

#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #18 (Few Understand)

"**You don't understand**" / "**DYOR**" / Using an insult in lieu of an argument.

1. This is what's known as an "[Ad Hominem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)" fallacy - aka "attacking the messenger" as a distraction from arguing the core points made.
2. This is what we call, "[Crypto Gaslighting](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=571s)." Crypto proponents pretend that we're not smart enough to recognize the value of crypto, therefore there's something wrong with *us* and not the phony reality they're peddling.
3. Almost never does the OP actually explain what it is they understand and we don't. It's merely a way to dismiss any opposing viewpoint without actually addressing it.

#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #3 (inflation)

**"InFl4ti0n!!!"** / **"The dollar will eventually become worthless"** / **"The dollar has lost 104% of its value since 1900!"** / **"The government prints money out of thin air"**

1. The "OMG iNfLaTiOn!" argument is a common one put forth by crypto bros. In addition to being fallacious (Tu Quoque, Whataboutism) it's an ignorant and shallow attempt to make people not have faith in fiat, and somehow believe bitcoin would be a reasonable alternative because it's supposedly deflationary and a better store of value. All of those premises are false.

2. Beyond that, crypto bros pretend there's one principal type of "inflation" and that is "monetary inflation" which by contrast makes Bitcoin's scarcity some type of reasonable alternative. In reality, there are [different types of inflation.](https://mises.org/understanding-money-mechanics/monetary-inflation-and-price-inflation) The most common one is "[price inflation](https://www.stlouisfed.org/open-vault/2025/july/differences-prices-inflation-explained)" which has nothing to do with how much money is in circulation. "Monetary inflation" is the least significant type of inflation in modern times, but crypto bros single out this element because it's the best scenario where they can argue their deflationary currency helps, but that's false. The causes of inflation are **many**, and the amount of money in circulation is one of the least significant factors in causing the prices of things to rise. More prominent inflationary causes are things like: [corporate greed & price gouging](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2024/apr/11/companies-inflation-price-gouging), [fuel prices](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0140988322000895), [supply chain issues](https://www.usbank.com/investing/financial-perspectives/market-news/supply-chain-issues-contribution-to-inflation.html), [war](https://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/notes/feds-notes/the-effect-of-the-war-in-ukraine-on-global-activity-and-inflation-20220527.html), environmental disasters, [one-time COVID mitigations](https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2022/03/why-is-us-inflation-higher-than-in-other-countries/), pandemics, and even [car dealerships](https://www.wsj.com/articles/car-dealer-markups-helped-drive-inflation-study-finds-7c1d5a2d).

3. The government does **not** "print money out of thin air"... all money in circulation is [tightly regulated and regularly audited and publicly transparent](https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/audited-annual-financial-statements.htm). The organization that manages the money in circulation is the Federal Reserve and contrary to what crypto bros claim, they're not a private cabal - they [are overseen and regulated by Congress](https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/structure-federal-reserve-system.htm). It's a delicate balance between money issuance and the status of the economy. And any attempt to increase debt [requires an Act of Congress to increase the debt ceiling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_debt_ceiling) - it's neither arbitrary, nor easy to do.

4. Crypto bros use "cash" as an example of wealth storage, but most people do not store their wealth in fiat. [Currency is meant to be *spent*, not hoarded](https://medium.com/change-your-mind/money-is-meant-to-be-spent-not-saved-9618edec676f). A dollar today will buy what it buys. If you hold a dollar for 90 years, of course it won't buy the same thing decades later (although it might actually be worth significantly more as antique money). Crypto creates no value and makes a lousy "investment."

5. If you are looking to "invest" you don't keep your value in cash/currency/fiat. You put it into something that can *create value* like stocks that pay dividends, real estate, interesting bearing accounts, and other personal property that allows you to be more productive (thereby creating additional value) as well as helps stimulate the economy. Crypto does none of that.

6. Bitcoin also [hasn't proven to be a hedge](http://prasad.dyson.cornell.edu/doc/WSJ.08Oct23.pdf) against anything, least of all monetary inflation. There are more and more studies that show [Bitcoin is not a hedge against inflation](https://www.bitget.com/news/detail/12560605033512) . Some argue [bitcoin is a liquidity barometer](https://www.coindesk.com/markets/2025/10/26/bitcoin-shines-as-a-liquidity-barometer-not-an-inflation-hedge-nydig-says) and not a hedge.

7. Some inflation is a by-product of a healthy economy: Over time more money is put in circulation - some pretend this is a bad thing, but it's not done in a vacuum. The average annual wage in 1900 was less than $4000. In 2023 [it's more than $70,000](https://www.statista.com/statistics/200838/median-household-income-in-the-united-states/)! There's more people out there and the monetary supply grows appropriately, as does wages. You can't take one element of the monetary system completely out of context and ignore everything else.

8. Sure there may be some nations that have caused out of control inflation as a result of their monetary policy (such as Zimbabwe, Argentina, Venezuela, Sudan, etc) but comparing modern nations to third-world dictatorships is absurd. The real problems these countries face are a more complex function of poor leadership + other political/environmental factors, not monetary systems, and crypto doesn't fix any of that.

9. If bitcoin and crypto was an actually disruptive, stable, useful technology, you wouldn't need to promote lies and scare people over the existing system. The *real* reason you do this is [because nobody can find any legitimate reason to use crypto in the first place](https://ioradio.org/i/blockchain-claims/).

10. Crypto ironically has more inflation in its ecosystem that is even more out of control, than in any traditional fiat system. At least with the US Dollar, money is accounted for and fully audited and it takes an Act of Congress to increase the debt. In crypto, all it takes is a dude printing USDT, USDC, BUSD or any of the other unsecured stablecoins to just print more out of thin air, and crypto-morons assume they're worth $1 of value.

#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #1 (Decentralized)

**"It's decentralized!!!"** / **"Crypto gives the control of money back to the people"** / **"Crypto is 'trustless'"**

1. Just because you de-centralize something doesn't mean it's better. And this is especially true in the case of crypto. The case for decentralized crypto is based on a phony notion that central authorities can't do anything right, which flies in the face of the thousands of things you use each and every day that "inept central government" does for you. Do you like electricity? Internet? Owning your own home and car? Roads and highways? Thank the government.

2. Decentralizing things, especially in the context of crypto [simply creates additional problems](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=1157s). In the de-centralized world of crypto "code is law" which means there's nobody actually held accountable for things going wrong. And when they do, you're fucked.

3. In the real world, everybody prefers to deal with entities they know and trust - they don't want "[trustless transactions](https://www.vox.com/23752826/binance-coinbase-sec-crypto-investors)" - they want reliable authorities who are held accountable for things. Would you rather eat at a restaurant that has been regularly inspected by the health department, or some back-alley vendor selling meat from the trunk of his car?

4. You still aren't avoiding "middlemen", "authorities" or "third parties" using crypto. In fact quite the opposite: You need third parties to convert crypto into fiat and vice-versa; you depend on third parties who write and audit all the code you use to process your transactions; you depend on third parties to operate the network; you depend on "middlemen" to provide all the uilities and infrastructure upon which crypto depends.

5. If you look into any crypto project, you will ultimately find [it's not actually decentralized at all](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=2557s).

#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #4 (scarcity)

"**Only 21M!**" / "**Bitcoin has a "hard cap"**" / "**Bitcoin is 'scarce' and that makes it valuable**" / "**DeFlAtiOnArY cUrReNCy FTW**" / "**The 'halvening' will make everything better**"

  1. It's well established that scarcity is not a guarantee of value. It's very telling that clinging to such an overtly irrational argument demonstrates that crypto people live in a tiny "bubble" where they reject all manner of empirical evidence against their "beliefs."
  2. If there only being 21 million BTC were reason for it to be valuable, then why aren't other cryptos that also share similar deflationary characteristics equally valuable? Why wouldn't something that is even more scarce than BTC be even more valuable? Because scarcity is meaningless without demand and demand is primarily a function of intrinsic value and utility -- *not* scarcity. See [here](https://ioradio.org/i/value/) for details.
  3. Bitcoin has no intrinsic value and no material utility. It's one of the least capable stores or transfers of value. The *only* way anybody can extract value from crypto is by coercion -- forcefully convincing someone (usually through FOMO or scare tactics) that this is something they need, and it's often accompanied by unrealistic promises of significant returns. Those returns are mathematically impossible for even a tiny percentage of holders.
  4. Bitcoin also is not scarce. There are multiple versions of Bitcoin, including Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi's Vision - both of which are limited to 21M tokens and in many cases are more technologically advanced than BTC. Also, every time there's a fork of crypto, the amount of tokesn in circulation doubles. Crypto proponents ignore these forks because they don't play into the "it's scarce" argument. But any crypto fork absolutely siphons value away from the original version. BTC might be priced higher than BCH, but BCH still holds value as well, and that's a total of 42M just of those two "bitcoin" versions that are out there, among hundreds of others.
  5. The "hard cap" of 21M for BTC can easily be changed by altering a parameter in the source code. Less than 6 people have commit access to the repo so BTC's source code control is centralized. It's entirely possible if BTC existed long enough to the point where block rewards weren't enough to motivate miners, and transaction fees became incredibly high, that influential players in the community would advocate increasing the cap and reinstating higher block rewards. So there are absolutely situations where the max amount in circulation could be increased.
  6. Even assuming BTC is limited in production, when it co-mingles with unsecured stablecoins like USDC and USDT, it is subject to inflation via stablecoin/liquidity inflation in the market. In reality, nobody really knows what the true price of BTC actually is given most crypto transactions at CEXs are done with stablecoins and not actual money. The underlying liquidity has never been accounted for.
  7. The scarcity of bitcoin basically amplifies all the wealth disparity dynamics crypto people complain about in the real world, which means in a world where bitcoin was a dominant store of value, there'd be an even greater concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. Ironically, Bitcoin's scarcity is one of its greatest liabilities. See [this detailed video for a more in-depth explanation](https://youtu.be/g3iqbB6URHA).

#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #24 (democratization/transparency)

"**Bitcoin's value is its 'transparency'**" / "**Bitcoin is 'audited'**" / **"The elite/politicians/Soros & Buffet/rich/oligarchs who control banks/money/everything are screwing everybody and crypto will fix that"** / "**Bitcoin was 'fair launched'**"

  1. 99.99 % of most bitcoin transactions do not happen on bitcoin's blockchain or any native crypto's blockchain. Most transactions are on private, unregulated centralized exchanges that are not at all transparent, so the "public ledger" of bitcoin is a useless gimmick.

  2. Furthermore, crypto blockchain ledgers are pseudonymous, and people can operate an infinite number of wallets, so it's easy to hide transactions and intent on chain. At the same time, it's also easy to expose certain transactions since the on and off-ramps do not afford people the same protections.

  3. The idea that crypto will be a hedge against powerful special interests is laughably hypocritical. In fact, the [wealth and power disparity in the crypto market](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Wealth-distribution-in-bitcoin_tbl1_357196737) makes all existing monetary systems seem 100% egalitarian in comparison.

  4. It's estimated that 90% of the BTC is in the hands of 2.5% of the wallets. 58% of Bitcoin is in control by 0.1% of holders. If Bitcoin were to become a dominant financial security, it could create an even smaller group of super-powerful oligarchs with significantly less oversight than existing systems.

  5. Other cryptos like Ethereum are just as bad, if not worse. Almost all crypto schemes are conceived primarily as a benefit to its developers and early benefactors, and as such, they almost always have a wildly disproportionate share and influence over the system. It doesn't matter if we're talking about DAOs or SAFEMOON. All the claims about being "money for the people by the people" is a huge lie.

  6. All around the world, people are well aware of powerful special interests taking advantage of others. This certainly is a problem that needs to be addressed, but crypto in no way offers a solution, and in fact would exacerbate those very problems on an unprecedented scale.

  7. The Brookings Institute produced a great analysis of this that can be found [here](https://www.brookings.edu/articles/debunking-the-narratives-about-cryptocurrency-and-financial-inclusion/) and here's a sample:

  "Similar to how proponents depict cryptocurrencies as a way to “democratize finance,” payday loans were once described as a way to promote the “democratization” of credit. Subprime mortgages were also heralded as “innovations” that would open doors for excluded communities, but ultimately decimated the wealth of Black and Latino or Hispanic communities during the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath."

#Stupid Crypto Talking Point #21 (risk)

"**Crypto has no 'Counterparty Risk'**" / "**Crypto gives you 'financial sovereignty'**" / "**Crypto has no 'middlemen'**" / "**Trustless transactions!**" / "**Bitcoin has less 'friction'**"

1. The idea that crypto/blockchain is "trustless" is false. With blockchain [you still need to trust various third parties](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=2557s) -- the difference is there's no accountability.
2. "Counterparty Risk" is defined as the potential for one party in a transaction to default/fail to follow through on the transaction, and is measured in the amount of financial loss/damage that could be caused as a result.
3. Satoshi claimed in his Bitcoin White Paper that one of the motivations behind creating crypto/blockchain was to eliminate counterparty risk by removing "middlemen" from the transaction, specifically financial institutions, which crypto people argue can fail and cause counterparty risk.
4. Unfortunately, bitcoin/crypto/blockchain does **not** eliminate counterparty risk. Even in situations where it's strictly a peer-to-peer digital crypto transaction, there are numerous ways in which that transaction can fail and cause counterparty risk. Here are some examples:
  * Lack of access to hardware necessary to process crypto (smartphones, computers, etc.)
  * Lack of access to electricity (note that electricity is not needed to engage in a P2P fiat transaction)
  * Lack of access to specific wallet/transactional software
  * Lack of access to the Internet (or limited internet access due to firewalls and municipal restrictions)
  * Faulty smart contracts
  * Vulnerabilities or back doors in any of the software being used
  * Not having access to the necessary private keys to execute a transaction
  * Having the system/software/bridge you're using hacked
  * Lack of adequate funding for transaction fees
  * blockchain processing consortium blacklists
  * developments in quantum computing that undermine cryptographic schemes
5. People argue "holding bitcoin" has no counterparty risk. This is also a lie. Just because your wallet is secure, doesn't mean your bitcoin is secure. Here's why:
  * In order to even *exist* crypto is dependent upon an elaborate network of computers running 24/7 - these systems are *not* paid by crypto holders - their participation is totally voluntary.
  * The moment a node/mining operator doesn't find it economically viable to operate, they can cease operations, and if enough of these people do so, the operation of the blockchain ceases, and nobody will be able to access their wallets and engage in transactions
  * In the case of bitcoin, its proof-of-work mechanism requires a lot of energy and resources to operate. If the price of BTC drops below a certain level, it no longer becomes economically viable to operate the network and **all bitcoin disappears**.
  * Yes, bitcoin's mining difficulty will adjust to address people leaving the industry and become more modest over time, but since the primary motivation for even participating in the network is the attempt to make exponential profit, the moment BTC stops consistently moving up, is the beginning of its demise. There's no other reason to operate the network if there isn't growth. And BTC's growth model is 100% mathematically un-sustainable.
  * In short: **There is no guarantee blockchain will operate forever**. There's already 30,000+ dead cryptocurrencies that are no longer in existence.
5. In reality, Bitcoin and crypto doesn't eliminate counterparty risk or middlemen. It simply changes one set of middlemen (traditional, accountable, well-regulated financial institutions) for another set of middlemen (random, anonymous crypto operators and the software and intermediate systems they use, as well as various other local and international communication services). Anywhere in this chain of necessary resources things can fail, either by intention, negligence, legal mandate, acts of god, or randomly, and it can cause a crypto transaction to not go through.

Some people claim that crypto has less counterparty risk than traditional fiat. This is a lie. And they cherry-pick specific "perfect" scenarios where there's minimal counterparty risk in crypto *provided* all of the above conditions aren't a problem. If we're going to fabricate a "nirvana fallacy" you can also have the same conditions apply to any alternate system and it too, will have "no counterparty risk" so this is a deceptive, disingenuous claim.

Whether we like it or not, whether we use Windows or not, Microsoft is going to insist on adding the tax whether the PC comes shipped with Windows or not. This is illegal bundling, Microsoft has essentially ignored prior rulings, and it's pretty much a certainty the courts will be fine with this.

"How did you get hired?"
"I was top at Fortnite. You?"
"Combat flight sims."

"Damn, two Boeings just crashed over an oil refinery on city limits and took out half the city."
"Did you remember to save your position beforehand?"
"Yeah."
"The reload and continue from there. No-one will notice."

I love computer games. I have XPlane 12 and many scenery packs. I rank well on Elite:Dangerous. From the sounds of it, the FAA would see me as over-qualified. In reality? There's no way in hell I'd be taking those kinds of risks with real lives. There's a huge difference between having good reflexes and a good eye, versus having the complex 4D spacetime relationship mental models needed for robust air traffic control.

You see, Linus has embraced transhumanism and is testing out the new kernel as a supplementary brain function, using MOSIX to offload all of the irritable comment generation at yet more nonsense on the mailing list to an Elizabot that he has written specifically to do this. This saves his actual brain for real work.

AI is not currently capable of performing any meaningful conceptual abstraction, it is only capable of very basic mechanical abstraction. Abstraction is itself multi-dimensional. Nor is there any indication that AI could ever perform multi-dimensional abstraction or multi-dimensional decomposition. Precious few humans are capable of it either, but some can.

No, AI would need humans because the best system is not a pure system but a hybrid system, and that means transhumanism with AI operating as an additional brain function rather than as a replacement for a brain.

Tool calling is, yes, but the current approach to it is (a) overt not transparent to the user, (b) not designed for the purpose I've outlined, and (c) not remotely good enough for the AI to be able to manage data through such tools.

Yes, you can connect an AI to a PostgreSQL database. Whoopee. Not even close to an AI detecting via classifiers that some of the data is relational in nature, transparently setting up its own PostgreSQL database in response, and using that proactively as an additional way to examine the data. You would need to explicitly set up the constructs, explicitly set up the databases, explicitly tell it when, where, and how to use the database, and if that particular usage conflicted with a way the AI actually worked, the AI would not be able to use it effectively. That's not remotely close to what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is much, much deeper than that. AIs lose focus when there is too much information currently in the system. Absolutely nothing stops an AI from using a document database as a virtual memory in which it can page in and out conceptual spaces so that the focus on any given step of a problem concerns just the problem. Other than such a concept not existing yet, which is kind of a limiting factor. But you need to know what connects to what. The AI could use an ontology reasoner for that, or a relational database, or an external graph. But you cannot provide those tools and you cannot configure them, for the simple reason that the AI is the only entity with any detailed map of how the underlying neural net is connecting those ideas up.

The AI itself has to select the tools, has to configure the tools, has to do all the work. Which means YOU cannot use any sort of API. YOU should have no involvement in the underlying mechanisms needed for the internal NN housekeeping.

And that's your other error. You're assuming this is about user data. No. It's about housekeeping operations within the NN itself to maximise functionality, it has nothing to do with the user side of things at all. If the user was capable of setting up dynamically structured databases that mutated with each step of a decomposed analysis, you'd have done everything the AI would be doing and you wouldn't need the AI to begin with.

You cannot do this work, you cannot even assist in this work, it has to be dynamic and it has to be utterly invisible to the operator.

We don't need bigger models, at this point. What we need is multi-dimensional decomposition, problem space transforms, and the ability for AI to use external tools (such as SQLite, memcached, etc) so that it can externalise static data that it needs to not corrupt accidentally but still keep in easy access.

If we had that, most of the things "bigger models" will do will actually end up being done better, quicker, with fewer compute resources.

To be useful in deep space, you're going to have to deal with very harsh radiation, far harder than the Vikings dealt with. You really want to have some large number of computers, where the number has to be odd and exceed 5. The reason it has to exceed 5 is that you need 5 in order to be able to use the Byzantine General's Problem to discern which computers are working correctly and which are radiation damaged. Since some will be damaged over time and you want 5 computers still operating around the time the power runs out, you have to start with more than that.

Massively radiation-hardened highly-robust low-power chips could be done. If you were clever enough, you could do this as a wafer-scale system where you marked parts as bad and networked around them. Free space optical communication across the wafer might be doable.

They might well still end up being low-density CMOS discrete logic.

Lead-lining the electronics isn't as much of a problem if you've launchers capable of handling heavy objects and don't mind burning through a lot of ion drive propellant for course corrections. This would improve the hardening beyond what can be done through the usual operations.

But, yeah, you'd need defect-free microelectronics. You really can't handle F00F bugs or defective instructions once you pass Earth orbit. And I can't think of anyone who knows how to do that.

Well, not just the solar system but the heliopause as well, and the near-Sol galactic winds. We can estimate the effects of space from just about any ancient near-Earth space junk, but I'm not sure how we'd go about calculating the impact of the galactic winds on something. The Voyager sensors won't be sending back nearly enough high-quality data to establish that.

It's actually a lot harder. The fly-bys invovled gravitational slingshots, which not just steered the probes but vastly accelerated them. Without the slingshots, human rocketry of the time would not have had the capacity to get probes to solar system escape velocity.

Our understanding of asteroids is now reasonably good. We know they come in solid and rubble-pile formats. We know that several show signs of lava flows, suggesting they come from disintegrated planetoids with a liquid core. We've managed to land on some and even retrieve samples from one.

Our understanding of comets is much weaker. We know that several appear to be multiple bodies fused together with ice (the one we tried sending a lander to was of this type) and the break-up pattern for Shoemaker-Levy 9 is suggestive (but not proof) of it having been a composite structure too. The one icy body we've seen in the Kuipier belt was also two bodies frozen together. Photographs of the core of Halley's Comet also suggests two bodies fused together with ices. This leads to some interesting questions. Obviously the probability of this configuration is very high, but what is the probability of other configurations? Is it so incredibly low that the odds of finding single-body or triple-body configurations is practically non-existent?

(This is kinda important if NASA is serious about a DART-type project to redirect one.)

Our understanding of solar system captures is non-existent. If there are extra-solar objects flying through every few years, then there is a definite non-zero probability that there are significant extra-solar objects that have been captured by the solar system in the last 5.5 billion years. That would be kinda very useful to know.

Current solar system formation models don't work well, but planets have sorted their composition by mass. Studying them only tells us so much. Asteroids are more useful but hit each other too often, so we don't know how much mixing and reconstitutuing has occurred there. The Kuipier Belt is much better, from that point of view. The density is far too low and most of the objects far too small. A lander could obtain a lot of extremely useful data about how the solar system formed that we can't obtain closer.

The Oort cloud is theoretical only, at this point. The only way to find if it is real is to send something out there.

If we're to get any probes in the future to go between solar systems (and such missions are entirely possible), we need to know a great deal more about the heliopause and the galactic winds.

Well, viruses and bacteria. And that last one is critical.

We know that the microbiome alters blood chemistry and we know that this alters brain function.

I do NOT postulate bacteria cause mental illness, but I do postulate that there is a non-zero probability that bacteria can aggravate mental illness. And that is all that we need here. If we can develop a vaccine that triggers the immune system to either attack the bacteria directly OR to produce antitoxins which attack those changes in the chemistry which are harmful, then the vaccine would lessen the impact of this particular vector.

That would not prevent mental illness, but that's fine. Reducing it is perfectly acceptable.