Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram

Channel

السكر : الحقيقة المغيبة

@SugarTruth1

On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry

422subscribers

+317 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1004326457097
TypeChannel
Username@SugarTruth1
CreatedBetween 1 June 2026 and 2 August 2026— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded9 August 2026
Last confirmed live14 August 2026
Measurements held3
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 14 August 2026
On Telegramt.me/SugarTruth1

Growth

105422263.57 August 2026 — 105 subscribers9 August 2026 — 105 subscribers14 August 2026 — 422 subscribers7 August 202614 August 2026
3 measurements spanning 8 days, net +317. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 57–470 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
14 Aug 2026, 21:08422+317
9 Aug 2026, 09:01105no change
7 Aug 2026, 08:32105first reading

Engagement

18 posts held, back to 2 August 2026the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
60.4%
avg views ÷ 422 subscribers
Avg views / post
255
16 posts measured
Reaction rate
0.874%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
18
of 18 held

ERR is average views per post over the last 30 days divided by subscribers, the definition TGStat uses, so this figure is comparable with the one you will see elsewhere. It falls structurally as a channel grows: a high ERR on a small channel and a low one on a large channel describe reach mathematics, not quality. We publish the figure and the sample it came from and pass no verdict on it.

ER is defined industry-wide as (forwards + reactions + comments) ÷ views— note the denominator is views, not subscribers. Telegram’s public web preview carries views and reactions but not forward or comment counts, so the reaction rate above is the reactions term only and is therefore a floor: the true ER for this channel is higher by an amount we have not measured and will not estimate. It is computed over the 15 of 16 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.

What these figures were computed from
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 8 August 2026
Posts held18 (2 August 20268 August 2026)
Views total4,078
Reactions total35
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken9 Aug 2026, 09:01 UTC

Views are a single reading per post, taken at the time above. A post published in the last day or two is still accumulating views, which pulls the 30-day average down slightly. That is a property of the standard definition rather than a fault in it, so we keep the definition rather than “correcting” the number into something nobody can reproduce.

Precision. Telegram publishes view counts on its public widget in short form — 8.12K, 3.7M — so any reading at or above 1,000 reaches us rounded to three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. Averages and rates derived from them are shown to the same precision rather than to the unit: a figure like 3,701,250 would assert digits nobody measured.

Reaction counts are published per emoji and rounded the same way, so a total below 1,000 is exact and a larger one is a sum that may carry a rounded component from each emoji above 1,000. Because it is a sum, it does not look rounded — read a large reaction total as three significant figures per contributing emoji rather than as the figure it prints.

What this channel posts

Video runtime
0s
Average length
0s

Measured directly from 1 video with a duration reading, out of the posts we hold for this channel — not this channel’s whole posting history, only the sample this register has actually read. An exact reading to the second, taken from the post itself rather than from Telegram’s own rounded chrome, so it carries no mark.

Reaction mix

35 reactions across 15 posts, in 6 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 60.0% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
2160.0%
🏆411.4%
👍411.4%
🤣38.57%
👏25.71%
🕊12.86%

No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.

Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.

Coverage. Reactions were read on 15 of the 18 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 35reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 18 most recent posts we hold, published 2 August 2026 to 8 August 2026, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.

Recent posts

8 Aug 2026, 14:54 UTC87 views3 reactionsread 9 August 2026
Photo

😁😁😁 https://t.me/SugarTruth1

🤣3

8 Aug 2026, 14:52 UTC85 views2 reactionsread 9 August 2026
Video

هل السكر الأبيض سم قاتل⁉️⁉️⁉️⁉️ https://t.me/SugarTruth1

1🕊1

8 Aug 2026, 14:06 UTC89 views4 reactionsread 9 August 2026

ختامًا… هذه هي قصة الباحث اليهودي جون يودكن، الذي يقدّسه منظّرو ومدّعو مقولة «السكر سمّ قاتل». فالمفارقة أن صاحب هذه الفرضية واجه في زمانه نقدًا علميًا واعتراضات من باحثين آخرين، ولم تكن أدلته آنذاك كافية لإثبات أن السكر هو السبب الرئيسي والمباشر لأمراض القلب. ومع ذلك، لا يزال بعض أتباع هذه النظرية يتعاملون مع أفكار يودكن وكأنها حقيقة مقدّسة لا تقبل النقد أو المراجعة! ⁉️لكن السؤال الذي يستحق أن نطرحه الآن: من ال

3🏆1

8 Aug 2026, 13:58 UTC87 views2 reactionsread 9 August 2026

تراجع مكانة يودكن والانتقادات التي واجهها لم يقتصر الاعتراض على أفكار جون يودكن حول السكر على الخلاف العلمي مع أنسل كيز، بل تعرضت أفكاره لاحقًا لانتقادات مؤسسية وعلمية وشخصية شديدة. فقد نشرت صحيفة The Guardian عام 2016 مقالًا عن يودكن، وذكرت فيه أن مكانته العلمية تراجعت بصورة كبيرة، وأنه أصبح غير مدعو إلى بعض المؤتمرات الدولية المتعلقة بالتغذية، وأن بعض المجلات البحثية رفضت نشر أبحاثه، كما أشارت إلى أن بعض زملائه

1🏆1

8 Aug 2026, 13:53 UTC78 views1 reactionsread 9 August 2026

دراسة معاصرة مهمة: A. R. P. Walker وفي العدد نفسه من مجلة Atherosclerosis عام 1971 نُشرت مراجعة مهمة بعنوان: Sugar Intake and Coronary Heart Disease للباحث A. R. P. Walker. المؤلف: A. R. P. Walker المجلة: Atherosclerosis السنة: 1971 المجلد: 14 العدد: 2 الصفحات: 137–152 DOI: 10.1016/0021-9150(71)90045-1 PMID: 4940759 الرابط المباشر للدراسة: https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9150(71)90045-1 https://www.sciencedirec

1

8 Aug 2026, 13:51 UTC67 views2 reactionsread 9 August 2026

🌟أولًا: نقد الأدلة الوبائية كان أحد المحاور الأساسية في نقد كيز هو الأدلة الوبائية التي استُخدمت لدعم فرضية السكر. اعتمد يودكن بدرجة كبيرة على المقارنات بين البلدان، وعلى العلاقة بين استهلاك السكر ومعدلات الوفيات بمرض القلب التاجي. إلا أن كيز رأى أن هذه العلاقات لا تكفي وحدها لإثبات علاقة سببية. فالارتباط بين استهلاك السكروز ومعدلات مرض القلب على مستوى السكان يمكن أن يتداخل مع عوامل غذائية أخرى، مما يجعل من الصعب ت

1👏1

8 Aug 2026, 13:47 UTC59 views1 reactionsread 9 August 2026

النقد المباشر: أنسل كيز يُعد أنسل كيز (Ancel Keys) من أبرز الباحثين الذين قدموا نقدًا مباشرًا ومفصلًا لفرضية يودكن المتعلقة بالسكروز وأمراض القلب. وفي عام 1971 نشر كيز دراسة بعنوان: Sucrose in the Diet and Coronary Heart Disease ونُشرت في مجلة Atherosclerosis، المجلد 14، العدد 2، سبتمبر–أكتوبر 1971، الصفحات 193–202. المؤلف: A. Keys المجلة: Atherosclerosis السنة: 1971 المجلد: 14 العدد: 2 الصفحات: 193–202 DOI:

1

8 Aug 2026, 13:44 UTC58 views1 reactionsread 9 August 2026

جون يودكن وفرضية السكر: النقد العلمي المباشر من أنسل كيز 🌟مقدمة: فرضية جون يودكن حول السكر في النصف الثاني من القرن العشرين ظهر خلاف علمي بارز حول العوامل الغذائية المرتبطة بأمراض القلب التاجية. وكان الباحث البريطاني في التغذية جون يودكن (John Yudkin) من أبرز الباحثين الذين اعترضوا على التركيز المتزايد على الدهون الغذائية، وطرح بدلًا منه فرضية ترى أن السكروز (sucrose) يستحق اهتمامًا أكبر بوصفه عاملًا محتملًا في أ

1

8 Aug 2026, 13:31 UTC374 views3 reactionsread 9 August 2026

كان الباحث البريطاني اليهودي جون يودكن (John Yudkin) من أوائل الباحثين الذين طرحوا في القرن العشرين فرضية تربط الاستهلاك المرتفع للسكر بانتشار أمراض القلب. وبلغت أفكاره ذروتها في كتابه الشهير Pure, White and Deadly: The Problem of Sugar، الصادر عام 1972، والمعروف في الولايات المتحدة بعنوان Sweet and Dangerous. ☠️لكن… هل كانت فرضية يودكن حقيقة علمية محسومة؟ أم أنها كانت مجرد فرضية لم تكن الأدلة المتاحة في ذلك الوقت

1🏆1👍1

8 Aug 2026, 13:26 UTC316 views3 reactionsread 9 August 2026

هذا هو الأب الروحي لأتباع ومنظّري نظرية «السكر سم» و«السكر قاتل»! 🍬⚠️ هل عرفتم من أين بدأت هذه الفكرة؟ ومن كان وراء انتشارها ودعمها؟

👍21

8 Aug 2026, 13:21 UTC321 views3 reactionsread 9 August 2026

جون يودكين (John Yudkin) هو طبيب وعالم تغذية بريطاني وُلد لعائلة يهودية أرثوذكسية عام 1910 وتوفي عام 1995. اشتهر بتحذيراته المبكرة من أضرار السكر على الصحة وتأليفه كتاب "نقي، أبيض وقاتل" عام 1972، وعمل مستشاراً علمياً وعضو مجلس محافظين في Wikipedia بالجامعة العبرية. [1, 2, 3] ◾️الخلفية والنشأة وُلد في لندن لأبوين يهوديين روسيين فرّا من المذابح عام 1905. الأبحاث العلمية حذر في سبعينيات القرن العشرين من أن السكر

2👍1

8 Aug 2026, 13:18 UTC338 views3 reactionsread 9 August 2026

من الذي أقنع العالم بأن السكر «سمّ قاتل»؟ 🍬⚠️ قبل أن يصبح هذا الوصف متداولًا على ألسنة الناس ووسائل الإعلام، كان هناك باحثون وضعوا الأساس لهذه الفكرة وربطوا السكر بأضرار صحية خطيرة. لكن… من كان أول من أطلق هذه الشرارة؟ ومن أين بدأت حكاية «السكر القاتل» التي غيّرت نظرة العالم إلى السكر؟ استعدوا للمفاجأة… 👀 إليكم جون يودكن. الباحث( البريطاني من أصل يهودي) https://t.me/SugarTruth1

2🏆1

Showing the 12 most recent of 18 posts we hold for @SugarTruth1. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.

Citation-graph rank

Citation-graph rank — 212,744 of 1,350,102entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.

Forward network

Built only from forwarded posts we have actually read, on both sides. Coverage is early and deliberately incomplete: a missing link means we have not read the post that would prove it, never that the relationship does not exist. Counts are distinct forwarded posts observed, so they only ever go up as we read more.

Mentions

Named by 3 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.

A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.

Cite this entry

A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 14 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“السكر : الحقيقة المغيبة” (@SugarTruth1), 422 subscribers as measured 14 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/SugarTruth1.

Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.