Channel
@Verdadesofenden
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Handles named that no longer answer · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
13,800subscribers
-28 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 10,000–31,623.
| Telegram ID | -1001175593687 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @Verdadesofenden |
| Description | https://x.com/Verdadsmolestas Info políticamente incorrecta ante la censura en prensa/RRSS. “Engullimos de un sorbo la mentira que nos adula y bebemos gota a gota la verdad que nos amarga”🇪🇸))) |
| Created | 19 January 2019 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 14 August 2026 |
| Measurements held | 9 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 14 August 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/Verdadesofenden |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 14 Aug 2026, 15:37 | 13,800 | -3 |
| 13 Aug 2026, 05:33 | 13,803 | -7 |
| 12 Aug 2026, 04:36 | 13,810 | -6 |
| 11 Aug 2026, 03:44 | 13,816 | -8 |
| 10 Aug 2026, 02:16 | 13,824 | +2 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 23:51 | 13,822 | -3 |
| 8 Aug 2026, 01:45 | 13,825 | -4 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 05:21 | 13,829 | +1 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 08:34 | 13,828 | first reading |
70 posts held, back to 4 August 2026 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 19 pagesof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
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 69 of 70 measured posts that carry a reaction reading, and over those same posts' views.
| Window | Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 14 August 2026 |
|---|---|
| Posts held | 70 (4 August 2026 – 14 August 2026) |
| Views total | 58,460 |
| Reactions total | 1,118 |
| Forwards / comments | not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated |
| Readings taken | 14 Aug 2026, 23:04 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.
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 14 August 2026 — not the date at the top of this page, which is when the subscriber count was last read. A count marked ≈ was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints these counters in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈142,000 means somewhere between 141,500 and 142,499.
Measured directly from 43 videos 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.
1,104 reactions across 67 posts, in 11 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 33.5% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🤮 | 370 | 33.5% | |
| 🔥 | 179 | 16.2% | |
| ❤ | 167 | 15.1% | |
| 👍 | 134 | 12.1% | |
| 💩 | 86 | 7.79% | |
| 👏 | 67 | 6.07% | |
| 😢 | 54 | 4.89% | |
| 😁 | 25 | 2.26% | |
| 😱 | 13 | 1.18% | |
| 🤔 | 5 | 0.453% | |
| 👎 | 4 | 0.362% |
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 69 of the 70 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 1,118reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 70 most recent posts we hold, published 4 August 2026 to 14 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.
🇺🇸”Los datos del CDC mediante análisis PRR en VAERS demostraron que los chutes experimentales para COVID causaban enfermedades neurológicas, coágulos sanguíneos, autoinmunidad o inflamación del corazón... Sigilosamente abandonaron su protocolo, sustituyeron métodos, bloquearon solicitudes de FOIA y ocultaron datos...” Aarón Siri. Abogado.
🔥3🤮2
🇺🇸 Certificado de Nacimiento de Obama & Loretta Fuddy En 2013, un avión "se estrelló/aterrizó" en el agua con una mujer a bordo llamada Loretta Fuddy, quien era la Directora de Salud de Hawái, y que casualmente había liberado el certificado de nacimiento de Obama con anterioridad en 2011. Todo el aterrizaje de emergencia en el agua fue captado en cámara, todos los pasajeros, incluida Fuddy, fueron vistos vivos, per…
🤮9
Recuerda: La madre de Pedro Sánchez y las chicas han vivido del negocio del abuelo, que alquilaba culos de marroquíes menores de edad y prostituía a mujeres rumanas en condiciones de esclavitud https://x.com/verdadsmolestas/status/2088335757446447200?s=52
🤮9🔥2
🇪🇺🥷🏻 Estrasburgo, Francia, sede del Parlamento Europeo. La construcción de la mezquita más grande de Europa está casi terminada. 10.000m2 el proyecto costará alrededor de 32 millones de euros, financiado por Turquía y Catar. Europa está abandonando su propia identidad.
🤮24💩4🔥2
🇷🇺 | Pavel Durov, fundador de Telegram: «Nos encontramos en una situación similar a la del Titanic: nuestro barco ya chocó contra el iceberg y hemos empezado a hundirnos sin tomar dimensión de esto, sin siquiera darnos cuenta. Y estoy hablando del barco de nuestras libertades»: 1/ El director ejecutivo de Telegram, dice que los pasajeros del Titanic en realidad no quisieron abandonar el barco durante casi dos horas…
👏7❤3🔥2🤮2
Video, posted without a caption
❤4
La Normalidad. Ceuta ha caído
🔥7🤮6😢2
🇺🇸🇷🇺LA ESTAFA RUSA: Obama lo sabía. Clinton lo sabía. Biden lo sabía. Comey lo sabía. Brennan lo sabía. FBI lo sabía. DOJ lo sabía. Todos sabían que Trump era inocente, pero lo difamaron y lo espiaron. Peor que Watergate. Trump es una víctima de crimen. https://x.com/verdadsmolestas/status/2088288838028292164?s=52
👍10🔥6🤮2❤1
Ha llegado el enriquecimiento multicultural que ofrece la izquierda a Ceuta
🤮23🔥2❤1
agosto de 2020. Madre australiana de 21 años y 3 hijos es estrangulada y arrestada por no usar mascarilla. Tenía exención médica para mascarilla. Fue acusada de agredir a un oficial. Los expertos sabían que las mascarillas no servían. Sus mentiras tiránicas no eran por tu salud.
🤮27👎3❤2🔥1🤔1
Aquí tenéis en abierto el artículo que Miguel Ángel López de la Asunción, autor de Los Últimos de Filipinas. Mito y realidad del sitio de Baler (Actas, 2016),dedicó a los héroes de Baler: open.substack.com/pub/laushispan… Prohibido perdérselo. Disfruta ya de nuestros artículos en Substack.
👍2🤮1
Yolanda Molina @OsculaInfame Aug 6 • 10 tweets • 6 min read • Read on X Todo el mundo habla de los Acuerdos de Abraham como si Marruecos e Israel se hubieran conocido en 2020, sin embargo, llevaban décadas viéndose a "escondidas" (+) Los contactos entre Rabat y Tel Aviv arrancan antes de 1956, con la comunidad judía marroquí de intermediaria informal. El Mossad monta un canal en 1954 y en 1955 llegan agentes para org…
🔥6🤮2
Showing the 12 most recent of 70 posts we hold for @Verdadesofenden. 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 — 472,960 of 1,345,403entries 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.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Republishes
Channels on the register whose posts this channel has forwarded.
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.
Named by 2 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.
Named by
Channels on the register whose posts name this channel's handle.
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.
@Verdadesofenden named 1 handle that resolve to nothing today. That is a fact about the reference, not necessarily a fact about the handle’s history — see the two groups below.
Most of these may never have existed as a live channel at all.A handle a channel names can be a typo, an aspirational name nobody registered, or a channel that was already gone before this one ever mentioned it. Unless a row below is marked evidenced, all we know is that it references a handle that is not a live channel today — not that anything “died”. How this is measured.
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
The reverse of the list above, and a different kind of signal. This does not require this channel to have ever been asked about directly — each row below is a channel we DID ask Telegram about, whose Telegram-generated list happened to include this one. A channel can appear here with an empty list above it, because being named by someone else’s query is independent of having been queried itself.
This channel appears in 2 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
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.
“Verdades Ofenden @VerdadesOfenden” (@Verdadesofenden), 13,800 subscribers as measured 14 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/Verdadesofenden.
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.