If anyone has actual proof of what’s being accused id like to see it.
I tend to deal with hard facts, and not hearsay....
I tend to deal with hard facts, and not hearsay....
-
Happy Birthday ICMag! Been 20 years since Gypsy Nirvana created the forum! We are celebrating with a 4/20 Giveaway and by launching a new Patreon tier called "420club". You can read more here.
-
Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!
So what is the deal with phylos these days?
- Thread starter shaggyballs
- Start date
Dankwolf
Active member
I hope it is not true , if not they just sighed there own death warrant with millions of suspects lol .
thailer
Active member
if you google "@phylosbioscience instagram" their profile is public, viewable on a desktop/internet and the post has their announcement video and responses to everyone which tells more than what they actually said in the video. they never released an update like they said. there was also an article i found published this january talking about an oregon breeder, can't recall their name atm but they talk a little about it too. it sounds like they're trying to make money off of royalties by selling patented plants to commercial operations to me but they're targeting heirloom breeders and people holding cuts that don't have any genetic matches leaving them unique? there's a lot of talk going on and the last posted response i found from phylos was that they will announce the details soon but everyone is being too disrespectful.
Chimera posted this on his Twitter account.
What’s the context?
The discovery shows that living tissue can be made using “dead” tissue.
Why is “dead” now in quotations? Because the term “dead” is being litigated.
So, people send in “dead” tissue to a genetic bank that, dead cells are able to be cultured to living cells, and likely Phylos does have TC’s of genetic material sent in by people who thought they were sending in dead plant material, which is giving Phylos possession of living genetic code, paid for by the people who donated the genetic material to Phylos.
This plant is going to be used in drugs, pharmaceuticals, foods and drinks, construction, textile, etc.
It’s a multi-trillion dollar industry.
We are witnessing novel technology being developed for this industry and BioTech is at the center of that, meaning billions if mot trillions for certain BioTech companies, like the Phylos/Skunkman conglomerate.
These plays being made have been orchestrated for a long time by multi-national entities.
What’s the context?
The discovery shows that living tissue can be made using “dead” tissue.
Why is “dead” now in quotations? Because the term “dead” is being litigated.
So, people send in “dead” tissue to a genetic bank that, dead cells are able to be cultured to living cells, and likely Phylos does have TC’s of genetic material sent in by people who thought they were sending in dead plant material, which is giving Phylos possession of living genetic code, paid for by the people who donated the genetic material to Phylos.
This plant is going to be used in drugs, pharmaceuticals, foods and drinks, construction, textile, etc.
It’s a multi-trillion dollar industry.
We are witnessing novel technology being developed for this industry and BioTech is at the center of that, meaning billions if mot trillions for certain BioTech companies, like the Phylos/Skunkman conglomerate.
These plays being made have been orchestrated for a long time by multi-national entities.
Attachments
So if this is true you all are missing the obvious answer to how it’s happening.
They are a genetics company and while tissue culture is all the rage in the scene these days it’s basic science to these guys. They would be way beyond that.
For them to turn something “dead” into a living plant they don’t need some new science. All they have to do is extract the DNA from a cell, living or dead, then reinsert that into what we would consider an “empty” cell. Think of how they clone sheep and dogs. Basically they could insert that dna into a seed they lab created and grow that seed into the same plant, genetically speaking, that the person submitted it from. From there they could take infinite cuttings or even produce thousands or even millions of these “clone” seeds.
But like JetLife, I’m a big believer in cold hard facts, and don’t have time for stoner myths and rumors. If there is any real evidence that they are stealing and using people’s samples inappropriately then please post it. But please don’t post another persons theory or rumor that doesn’t have anything to back it up.
They are a genetics company and while tissue culture is all the rage in the scene these days it’s basic science to these guys. They would be way beyond that.
For them to turn something “dead” into a living plant they don’t need some new science. All they have to do is extract the DNA from a cell, living or dead, then reinsert that into what we would consider an “empty” cell. Think of how they clone sheep and dogs. Basically they could insert that dna into a seed they lab created and grow that seed into the same plant, genetically speaking, that the person submitted it from. From there they could take infinite cuttings or even produce thousands or even millions of these “clone” seeds.
But like JetLife, I’m a big believer in cold hard facts, and don’t have time for stoner myths and rumors. If there is any real evidence that they are stealing and using people’s samples inappropriately then please post it. But please don’t post another persons theory or rumor that doesn’t have anything to back it up.
Only thing I feel about this is most guys here are a bit paranoid and draw quick conclusions based on unproven assumptions and hearsay.
I also sent some seeds to phylos just because of a simple thing i like: more data is better than no data. Science ftw.
Cheers
I also sent some seeds to phylos just because of a simple thing i like: more data is better than no data. Science ftw.
Cheers
thailer
Active member
this was the one thing that was weird about the data and who controls it. they say they own your germplasm but when you look up what that is it says living tissue but why would they even need to say that if they're receiving dead tissue anyways? something about what we are sending is viable and living. there's just something "off".
Sunshineinabag
Active member
Where's the cultivars that create smart ass sarcasm of a creative kind!?
Drewsif
Member
Correct. They already have a patented breeding stock cultivar, what they care about is proving everyone is using it without permission.
G
Guest
What did you all think was gonna happen lol. D'uh
I can't see any quote saying they own Phylos Galaxy on the website you linked or any reference to it, do you have a proof they are linked or are you just guessing they are?
To me it looks like they are bragging about having a large genetics collection but I don't think it's coming from Phylos Galaxy. I could be wrong but you as well assuming they are linked.
To me it looks like they are bragging about having a large genetics collection but I don't think it's coming from Phylos Galaxy. I could be wrong but you as well assuming they are linked.
Is it really to much to ask to do some research yourself?
I know you are not the only one.
The information is out there for those who seek it.
Anyway here you go.
Straight from the phylos web site.
Super simple to find for someone who is looking for the truth.
https://phylos.bio/blog/plant-science-meets-cannabis
We've helped launch Conception Nurseries, a clone nursery
Yes I've seen after they are linked by some people working for both companies. Can they really make tissue culture with dried plant material?? If that's possible I'm really amazed by the science involved.
Is there a contract with Phylos when you send them samples saying they ca use your genetic for their own purposes?
Is there a contract with Phylos when you send them samples saying they ca use your genetic for their own purposes?
White Beard
Active member
K-Mag: wrong question - if there’s no contract saying THEY CAN’T then whatever you send them is their property, and they can do as they like with it. Public statements do not constitute a contract, real or implied...unless a class-action lawsuit finds otherwise.
Also, it doesn’t matter whether or not you send ‘dead’ material: tissue culture can extract enough to grow the plant even if the seed itself wouldn’t germ...you could find that out by reading HERE @ IC.
Also, it doesn’t matter whether or not you send ‘dead’ material: tissue culture can extract enough to grow the plant even if the seed itself wouldn’t germ...you could find that out by reading HERE @ IC.
Why is everyone here so caught up on the tissue culture thing? Yes I get that it’s the latest buzz word in the cannabis scene but they have never needed live plants to replicate a plant from a dried sample. All they ever needed was a single dna sample which was inside of every cell of every sample. We’re not talking about woolly mammoths that have been in a dna damaging deep freeze for thousands of years. We’re talking dried samples that are less than a year old that is full of perfect dna samples for them to extract and use to replicate the original plant.
On the other hand did they really need us to do what they are doing? I mean they could’ve ordered the same seeds, obtained the same cuts and even played with breeding like any of us. I don’t think phylos was to steal everyone’s stuff. What is happening was always the end goal, phylos was just a way to make some money to make it possible without spreading themselves too thin through investors that would possible want to change the end goal. I think the galaxy was just an easy way to bring in money to fund all the behind the scenes GMO stuff they truly wanted to do. Sorry but “stealing” what was readily available to pretty much everyone is just silly conspiracy theory spin.
In fact what most here are saying is acthe opposite. They can’t take our samples and patent them because they are the same ones that have made the data public proving they have been in the public domain.
On the other hand did they really need us to do what they are doing? I mean they could’ve ordered the same seeds, obtained the same cuts and even played with breeding like any of us. I don’t think phylos was to steal everyone’s stuff. What is happening was always the end goal, phylos was just a way to make some money to make it possible without spreading themselves too thin through investors that would possible want to change the end goal. I think the galaxy was just an easy way to bring in money to fund all the behind the scenes GMO stuff they truly wanted to do. Sorry but “stealing” what was readily available to pretty much everyone is just silly conspiracy theory spin.
In fact what most here are saying is acthe opposite. They can’t take our samples and patent them because they are the same ones that have made the data public proving they have been in the public domain.
It's pretty amazing to be able to replicate a plant with only dried material, anyway to me it's pretty magic.
I agree people should not jump too fast on conspiracy theory train and first analyse facts.
I agree people should not jump too fast on conspiracy theory train and first analyse facts.
White Beard
Active member
They don’t have to: gene splicing/editing is a simple matter with the CRISPR technology: all they have to do is remove the genes they want from their ‘donation pool’ and insert them into the plants they *do* or *can* have patented.
I’m not saying they’re doing it - just saying they’ve left themselves plenty of wiggle room in which to do it - and plenty of ‘donated’ genetic material to do it with.
Just analyse what they’ve *said* in light of what they’ve *done*. No need for conspiracy theories beyond normal business practices
troutman
Seed Whore
What if somebody played the Pied Piper and wanted to get people (suckers) to submit their genetics to make
them public domain thru a third party. Meanwhile, that same person was actually working for another company
currently intent on making patents.
Wouldn't that eliminate the competition?
them public domain thru a third party. Meanwhile, that same person was actually working for another company
currently intent on making patents.
Wouldn't that eliminate the competition?
