Politics & activism — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 10 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 97% confidence. This is a model’s judgement about what the channel is likely to be about, not a fact this register measured the way a subscriber count or a view count is measured — it can be revised on a later pass, and it carries no weight anywhere else on this page. How this classification works, and the other topics.
Observations
These are measurements, not verdicts. Each one below states something we counted, alongside the evidence it was counted from, so you can check it rather than take it. None of them is graded: every observation this register holds is recorded at severity 0, because the precision of the detectors behind them has not been measured yet, and a rating we cannot support is worse than none. Read each as a fact about the data, not as a judgement about the channel. How we measure.
Content that also appears on other registered channels
Posts published here appear in near-verbatim form on 3 other registered channels. The matching is on the text itself, not on Telegram’s forward marker, so it finds a copy whether or not it was labelled as one.
Matching posts — open both and compare (6 of the pairs behind the counts below)
Channels this entry shares post bodies with, where at least one matching post pair has no forward credit between the two channels, or to a common source, recorded in our data
Text overlap is the Jaccard coefficient over the set of distinct three-word phrases in the two bodies: 1.00 is identical wording, and the threshold for counting a pair at all is 0.70. Candidates are generated by simhash LSH (4 x 16-bit bands, exact Hamming <= 3) verified against the bodies with Jaccard over the SET of distinct 3-word shingles. Published first counts which side of each matching pair carries the earlier timestamp — in this corpus, which is the limitation directly below.
What this cannot establish
MEASURED, DOMINANT ERROR SOURCE: a post ingested before 2026-08-06 may have carried a forward header that was not recorded. A 45-pair hand-check against live t.me pages found 14 (31%) where the live page shows a forward header naming the other channel and the database has none, plus 4 more (9%) naming a third party. The text match itself was wrong 0 times out of 45. Read attribution_capture.items_in_trusted_window before treating the unattributed count as a claim.
Telegram lets a channel forward a post with a header naming the source, and we only began reliably recording that header on 2026-08-06. None of the 0 matches recorded here fall after that date, so for this entry we cannot say whether any of them carried a credit. The duplication is measured; the absence of attribution is not.
“Published first” means first in this corpus. We hold 198 comparable posts for this entry, running 3 August 2026 to 14 November 2026. A channel we have read one page deep will look younger than a neighbour we have read in full, and the order would flip with no change in the underlying facts.
The detector’s own notes on this observation, as it recorded them. Names in this_style are fields of the underlying evidence record, which the plain-English paragraphs above read out for this entry.
Verbatim republication has three causes and the text separates only two: a clone/mirror, unattributed copy-paste, or BOTH channels copying a common third source that neither attributes. The spread filter (content held by at most 8 channels) reduces the third and does not remove it.
'Earliest' means earliest IN THIS CORPUS. A channel ingested one page deep will look younger than a neighbour ingested in full; corpus_coverage above is there to be checked before the direction is believed.
shared_verified_est extrapolates the sampled pass rate over the full narrow match count; sampled/passed are the numbers actually measured.
Absence of a forward header is not proof of intent: Telegram lets a channel disable forward attribution, and a credit written in the body is not parsed as attribution here (mention_edge_either_way above is the closest available signal).
Recorded under the key clone_source, last confirmed 15 November 2026. An observation that a later pass no longer finds is cleared, and a cleared observation is removed from this page rather than being shown struck through — we do not keep publishing a claim we have withdrawn. Dispute an observation.
Growth
65 measurements spanning 100 days, net +278. 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 15,871–16,298 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded, most recent 20 of 65
Measured (UTC)
Subscribers
Change
13 Nov 2026, 22:00
16,205
-13
11 Nov 2026, 02:56
16,218
-8
9 Nov 2026, 08:38
16,226
+1
7 Nov 2026, 22:07
16,225
-3
6 Nov 2026, 21:10
16,228
+6
5 Nov 2026, 20:58
16,222
-1
4 Nov 2026, 23:47
16,223
-1
3 Nov 2026, 22:35
16,224
-4
3 Nov 2026, 01:44
16,228
-4
2 Nov 2026, 03:40
16,232
-6
1 Nov 2026, 03:24
16,238
-4
31 Oct 2026, 06:49
16,242
+1
30 Oct 2026, 05:51
16,241
-3
29 Oct 2026, 02:38
16,244
-3
27 Oct 2026, 21:36
16,247
+4
26 Oct 2026, 22:57
16,243
+6
25 Oct 2026, 20:29
16,237
-5
24 Oct 2026, 21:08
16,242
-5
23 Oct 2026, 23:36
16,247
-2
23 Oct 2026, 02:01
16,249
first reading
Engagement
222 posts held, back to 3 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 80 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
ERR · 30 days
25.6%
avg views ÷ 16,205 subscribers
Avg views / post
4,160
71 posts measured
Reaction rate
1.11%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
71
of 222 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.
What these figures were computed from
Window
Rolling 30 days · latest post in window 15 November 2026
Posts held
222 (3 August 2026 – 15 November 2026)
Views total
295,070
Reactions total
3,272
Forwards / comments
not exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken
15 Nov 2026, 18:43 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
Photos
≈9,620
Videos
≈2,880
Links
≈13,100
Lifetime counters from Telegram’s own channel header, read 15 November 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.
Video runtime
3h 44m
Average length
5m 45s
Measured directly from 39 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.
Reaction mix
11,462 reactions across 211 posts, in 15 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 23.9% of them.
Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
Reaction
Count
Share
Share, drawn
👍
2,737
23.9%
❤
2,663
23.2%
💯
2,565
22.4%
🙏
1,214
10.6%
👏
1,093
9.54%
🔥
726
6.33%
🏆
216
1.88%
🥰
67
0.585%
👌
57
0.497%
🎉
46
0.401%
😁
42
0.366%
🕊
18
0.157%
🤩
13
0.113%
💔
4
0.035%
😍
1
0.009%
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 220 of the 222 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 12,050 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 222 most recent posts we hold, published 3 August 2026 to 15 November 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
Telegram’s own ‘edited’ marker: 29 of 71 posts held from the last 30 days (40.8%) carried it when this register last read them. The marker says a post was changed after publishing, not what it said before — this register holds the earlier wording only where an edit fell between two of its own reads (see the edit ledger and how it is measured).
⏺️EIN HERZLICHES DANKESCHÖN AN EUCH ALLE! ⏺️
Die Unterschriftensammlung für unsere UBI-Beschwerde gegen die SRF-Sendung «Puls» ist abgeschlossen!
Liebe Unterstützerinnen und Unterstützer
Heute, am 15. November, haben wir die Unterschriftensammlung für unsere Beschwerde bei der Unabhängigen Beschwerdeinstanz für Radio und Fernsehen (UBI) beendet.
Wir möchten uns bei allen von Herzen bedanken, die uns in den vergang…
⏺️EIN E-MAIL-AUSTAUSCH, DEN MAN SICH NICHT ENTGEHEN LASSEN SOLLTE!⏺️
Spott kostet nichts. Haltung braucht Mut. Und die Wahrheit lässt sich nicht mit fünf Rappen abspeisen
Von: J O [mailto:[email protected]]
Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2026 16:49
An: Info Vereinwir
Betreff: AW: Gönnerin / Patin
Verehrtester Christian
Mit grösster Bewunderung verfolge ich weiterhin Dein Engagement. Besonders Deinen Kampf gegen…
Persönlich an den Rüstungschef, Dr. Urs Loher armasuisse
https://www.ar.admin.ch/de/organisation
Von: Christian Oesch, Präsident Schweizerischer Verein WIR [mailto:[email protected]]
Gesendet: Freitag, 13. November 2026 12:56
An: '[email protected]'
Cc: Bundesrat & Ständerat / Chefredaktoren Schweiz
Betreff: Rheinmetall, RUAG, Nitrochemi
Ref: Rheinmetall, RUAG, Nitrochemie und Pro Schweiz – Forderung nac…
25 Jahre Recherche – Die Macht hinter der politischen Fassade
Verfasst von swissvox
Ich beschäftige mich nun seit über 25 Jahren intensiv mit den politischen, militärischen, technologischen und finanziellen Machtstrukturen dieser Welt.
Was ich dabei untersucht habe, geht weit über die…
https://uncutnews.ch/25-jahre-recherche-die-macht-hinter-der-politischen-fassade/
🔴 Nichts verpassen 📬⚡️Abo → @uncut_news
🔴 Spe…
‼️Ich habe in den letzten neun Jahren 28 Millionen Dollar dafür ausgegeben, die Regierung der Vereinigten Staaten zu verklagen, um herauszufinden, welche wissenschaftlichen Erkenntnisse die Behauptung stützen, dass Impfstoffe sicher und wirksam sind‼️
Folgendes kann ich Ihnen mit Sicherheit sagen: Es gab noch nie eine Sicherheitsstudie mit einer Placebo-Injektion aus Kochsalzlösung – bei der eine Gruppe geimpft und …
SWISSVOX BREAKING NEWS
🚨Pro Schweiz, Rheinmetall, RUAG und Nitrochemie: Wir fordern lückenlose Transparenz!
12. November 2026 | Schweizerischer Verein WIR
Die Schweizer Neutralität ist kein Geschäftsmodell. Sie ist ein verfassungsrechtlicher Grundsatz und ein politisches Versprechen gegenüber der Bevölkerung. Wer sich öffentlich als Hüter dieser Neutralität präsentiert, muss sich deshalb auch kritische Fragen zu s…
Rekord-Randen aus Oeschs Biogarten – Ernte 2026 🌱
Mit Liebe gepflegt, mit Geduld bedacht,
hat die Natur uns Riesen gebracht.
So mächtig gewachsen, so zart und fein,
so süss und köstlich kann Bio sein.
Mit Herz und Hand, ganz ohne Hast,
hat jede Rande Kraft gefasst.
Ein Rekord, den uns die Erde schenkt,
wenn man sie liebt und an morgen denkt. ❤️
Informationsaustausch rund um Grundversorgung, Schutz und Gesundheit i…
❤33👍14🙏4👏3😁1
Showing the 12 most recent of 222 posts we hold for @VereinWIR. 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.
Posts edited after publishing
@VereinWIR edited 4 posts after it first published — the same permalink now carries different wording than the one this register originally read, caught because our own crawl held a copy of the earlier text.
An edit is not deception. Typo fixes, price updates and corrections look exactly like this too — this register can tell you the wording changed and when, not why. How this is measured.
First edit seen
12 August 2026
Most recent edit
13 November 2026
Polls
The 6 most recent of 9 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.
🇨🇭 WIR WOLLEN ES WISSEN
Welche konkrete Handlung bist Du bereit, innerhalb der nächsten 30 Tage umzusetzen?
1. Einen Gemeinderat oder Kantonsrat persönlich ansprechen13%
2. Einen schriftlichen Brief an einen Volksvertreter senden16%
3. An einer Gemeindeversammlung teilnehmen und eine Frage stellen9%
4. Einen Leserbrief oder öffentlichen Beitrag verfassen10%
5. Eine Behörde oder Institution mit konkreten Fragen konfrontieren19%
6. Selbst eine Recherche oder Anfrage durchführen20%
7. Eine kleine lokale Gruppe oder Gesprächsrunde organisieren16%
8. Bei einem WIR-Projekt aktiv mitarbeiten15%
9. WIR mit einer regelmässigen Spende unterstützen27%
10. Ich bin derzeit zu keiner konkreten Handlung bereit23%
The shares total 168%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
🇨🇭 WIR WOLLEN ES WISSEN
Was bist Du bereit, selbst zu leisten, ohne dass WIR Dir alles fertig vorbereitet?
1. Quellen und Originaldokumente lesen56%
2. Ein Thema selbst recherchieren54%
3. Einen eigenen Brief oder Leserbrief verfassen31%
4. Eine Anfrage an eine Behörde stellen24%
5. Ein BGÖ-Gesuch vorbereiten und einreichen2%
6. Einen politischen Vertreter persönlich kontaktieren19%
7. An einer Gemeindeversammlung eine kritische Frage stellen26%
8. Eine lokale Gruppe oder Aktion organisieren16%
9. Bei einem bestehenden Projekt regelmässig mitarbeiten31%
10. Ich möchte mich derzeit nicht aktiv beteiligen14%
The shares total 273%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
🇨🇭 WIR WOLLEN ES WISSEN
Hast Du einem gewählten Politiker schon einmal persönlich klargemacht, dass sein Verhalten Deine nächste Wahlentscheidung beeinflusst?
1. Ja, einem Gemeinderat19%
2. Ja, einem Kantonsrat8%
3. Ja, einem Nationalrat oder Ständerat8%
4. Ja, mehreren Politikern auf verschiedenen Ebenen15%
5. Ja, schriftlich und mit einer klaren Antwort7%
6. Ja, schriftlich, aber ohne Antwort16%
7. Ich habe es allgemein angedeutet, aber nicht deutlich ausgesprochen3%
8. Ich wollte es tun, habe es aber bisher nicht gemacht10%
9. Nein, ich halte solche Gespräche für wirkungslos21%
10. Nein, bisher habe ich mich nicht getraut oder nicht zuständig gefühlt27%
The shares total 134%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
🇨🇭 WIR WOLLEN ES WISSEN
Wo hast Du in den vergangenen zwölf Monaten persönlich und erkennbar gehandelt?
1. An einer Gemeindeversammlung9%
2. Im Gespräch mit einem Gemeinderat14%
3. Im Gespräch mit einem Kantonsrat6%
4. Im Gespräch mit einem Nationalrat oder Ständerat6%
5. Gegenüber einer kantonalen oder eidgenössischen Behörde13%
6. Gegenüber einer Schule, Gericht, Betreibungsamt, Krankenkasse oder anderen Institution22%
7. Mit einem Leserbrief oder Gastbeitrag11%
8. An einer Kundgebung, Veranstaltung oder öffentlichen Diskussion22%
9. In einer lokalen Bürgergruppe oder einem konkreten Projekt15%
10. Nirgendwo – ich bin bisher nicht persönlich aktiv geworden36%
The shares total 154%, above 100: this poll accepts more than one answer per voter. No per-option vote count is published, so the number of voters who chose each option is not derivable and is not shown.
Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none. The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.
The shares need not add up to 100. Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.
Read from the 222 most recent posts we hold, published 3 August 2026 to 15 November 2026. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.
Forward network
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
Republished by 103 registered channels. The 48 listed are the ones that have forwarded the most posts; the rest are counted here but not each listed.
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 112 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. The 24 listed below are the most frequent namers; the rest are counted above but not each listed.
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.
Handles this channel named that no longer answer
Dead references
2
handles named in this channel’s posts, vacant today
Evidenced gone
0
we ourselves saw one of these resolve, at some point
Never seen alive
2
vacant every time we have ever looked
@VereinWIR named 2 handles 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.
Never seen alive
References a handle that is not a live channel — we have no record it ever was one.
@uteschons1907 named in 2 posts, 26 August 2026 – 28 August 2026
@wirmarktplatzchat named in 1 post, 13 November 2026 – 13 November 2026
Appears in Telegram’s recommendations for other channels
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.
Dr. Daniele Ganser @DanieleGanser · 73,258 Telegram ranks this channel #1 of 85 here — alongside 84 others — read 19 August 2026
Philipp Kruse, Rechtsanwalt @philippkruse · 21,895 Telegram ranks this channel #3 of 81 here — alongside 80 others — read 21 September 2026
Chemtrails/Haarp/Wettermanipulation @KanalChemtrailsHaarp · 35,894 Telegram ranks this channel #3 of 65 here — alongside 64 others — read 1 September 2026
Vivoterra @Vivoterra · 86,794 Telegram ranks this channel #3 of 85 here — alongside 84 others — read 17 August 2026
ALLES ÜBER DIE NWO, WHO, WEF, UN, EU, GREAT RESET, CO2 KLIMAWANDELLÜGE, CORONA PLANDEMIE @horst250936 · 24,813 Telegram ranks this channel #4 of 69 here — alongside 68 others — read 14 September 2026
Ernst Wolff @Wolff_Ernst · 21,666 Telegram ranks this channel #5 of 76 here — alongside 75 others — read 22 September 2026
Prof.Dr.Stefan Hockertz Original Wissenschaft @ProfHockertz · 54,143 Telegram ranks this channel #5 of 81 here — alongside 80 others — read 23 August 2026
BaumMentor die EnergieKultur @BFE_Energiekultur · 60,942 Telegram ranks this channel #5 of 63 here — alongside 62 others — read 22 August 2026
Aya Velázquez @ayawasgeht · 21,447 Telegram ranks this channel #6 of 84 here — alongside 83 others — read 22 September 2026
Uncut-News.ch "Das Original"🇨🇭Unabhängige Analysen und Informationen zu Geopolitik, Wirtschaft, Gesundheit, Technologie @uncut_news · 102,073 Telegram ranks this channel #6 of 88 here — alongside 87 others — read 15 August 2026
PHANTOM - SCHWEIZ 👔 @PhantomSchweiz · 60,902 Telegram ranks this channel #8 of 76 here — alongside 75 others — read 22 August 2026
Dr. Michael Nehls @MichaelNehls · 32,368 Telegram ranks this channel #9 of 82 here — alongside 81 others — read 5 September 2026
Schwurblerhumor😁 @schwurblerhumor · 38,491 Telegram ranks this channel #10 of 70 here — alongside 69 others — read 31 August 2026
Reiner Fuellmich 🇩🇪/🇦🇹/🇨🇭 @ReinerFuellmich · 89,168 Telegram ranks this channel #10 of 84 here — alongside 83 others — read 17 August 2026
Kla.TV - Klagemauer TV @KlagemauerTV · 75,147 Telegram ranks this channel #11 of 82 here — alongside 81 others — read 19 August 2026
Silberjunge Thorsten Schulte OFFIZIELL @silberjungethorstenschulte · 75,408 Telegram ranks this channel #11 of 82 here — alongside 81 others — read 19 August 2026
Simone Voss - EINE LEHRERIN STEHT AUF- @simonevoss · 39,783 Telegram ranks this channel #14 of 72 here — alongside 71 others — read 11 September 2026
Bernie aus Australien 🇦🇺 ®™ @bernie006 · 32,295 Telegram ranks this channel #14 of 71 here — alongside 70 others — read 4 September 2026
Ärzte für Aufklärung offiziell @aerztefueraufklaerungoffiziell · 78,953 Telegram ranks this channel #14 of 85 here — alongside 84 others — read 18 August 2026
AUFWACHKANAL ❗️ deine rote Pille @Aufwachkanal_deine_rote_Pille · 82,625 Telegram ranks this channel #14 of 80 here — alongside 79 others — read 18 August 2026
BITTEL TV - EINFACH ANDERS @bitteltv · 91,059 Telegram ranks this channel #14 of 84 here — alongside 83 others — read 17 August 2026
Benjamin Fulford Berichte @stwfullford · 20,925 Telegram ranks this channel #15 of 70 here — alongside 69 others — read 24 September 2026
Raik Garve @Gesundheitslehrer · 40,932 Telegram ranks this channel #16 of 73 here — alongside 72 others — read 30 August 2026
🕊Freiheit der Gedanken🕊 @FreiheitDerGedanken · 73,747 Telegram ranks this channel #16 of 83 here — alongside 82 others — read 19 August 2026
This channel appears in 110 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total, of which the 24 where it ranks highest are shown above. Each is Telegram’s list for THAT channel, not this one — see how this is measured.
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 13 November 2026 — this
entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Schweizerischer Verein WIR (Wirksamkeit - Intuition - Respekt)” (@VereinWIR), 16,205 subscribers as measured 13 November 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/VereinWIR.
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.