https://amzn.eu/d/0bwJfCnO
👍5

Channel
@neuegermanischemedizin
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Cite this entry
1,672subscribers
+22 since we began measuring on 7 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.
| Telegram ID | -1001523976911 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @neuegermanischemedizin |
| Created | Between 1 August 2021 and 28 February 2023 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated. |
| First recorded | 7 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 27 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 13 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 27 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/neuegermanischemedizin |
Health & wellness — 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 17 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 84% 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 why it has no browse page of its own yet.
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 27 Sept 2026, 01:38 | 1,672 | +6 |
| 17 Sept 2026, 21:20 | 1,666 | +3 |
| 13 Sept 2026, 09:21 | 1,663 | +2 |
| 9 Sept 2026, 17:17 | 1,661 | +2 |
| 4 Sept 2026, 06:56 | 1,659 | +2 |
| 29 Aug 2026, 16:44 | 1,657 | +1 |
| 26 Aug 2026, 19:58 | 1,656 | -1 |
| 24 Aug 2026, 04:18 | 1,657 | +2 |
| 20 Aug 2026, 05:45 | 1,655 | +1 |
| 17 Aug 2026, 10:06 | 1,654 | +3 |
| 13 Aug 2026, 16:16 | 1,651 | +1 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 16:33 | 1,650 | no change |
| 7 Aug 2026, 12:10 | 1,650 | first reading |
20 posts held, back to 9 December 2024 — the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 page of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.
Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 20 posts for this entry, the most recent from 14 June 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
Measured directly from 6 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.
229 reactions across 20 posts, in 13 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 25.8% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 59 | 25.8% | |
| ❤ | 58 | 25.3% | |
| 🔥 | 43 | 18.8% | |
| 👏 | 39 | 17.0% | |
| 😡 | 6 | 2.62% | |
| 🙏 | 6 | 2.62% | |
| 💊 | 4 | 1.75% | |
| 🤔 | 4 | 1.75% | |
| 😘 | 3 | 1.31% | |
| 🥰 | 3 | 1.31% | |
| 😢 | 2 | 0.873% | |
| 😁 | 1 | 0.437% | |
| 🙊 | 1 | 0.437% |
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 20 of the 20 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 229 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 20 most recent posts we hold, published 9 December 2024 to 14 June 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.
https://amzn.eu/d/0bwJfCnO
👍5
Dr. Ryke Geerd Hamer
❤4🙏4👍1
Dieses Buch wird nirgendwo viele Bewertungen sammeln können (werden seit Jahren entfernt), da es unter dem Radar gehalten wird, seit Jahrzehnten!
🔥4💊1🥰1
Dieses Video ist für alle gedacht, die es bisher noch nicht verstanden haben. Aufgrund der vielen Fehlinformationen und widersprüchlichen Aussagen solltet ihr euch nicht ausschließlich auf Internetrecherchen verlassen. Wer sich fundiert und nachhaltig informieren möchte, dem empfehle ich das Buch des Docs. Damit habt ihr eine verlässliche Wissensgrundlage, auf die ihr jederzeit zurückgreifen könnt. https://amzn.eu/d/…
🔥9🥰1
🏛 Viele Universitäten wollten Hamers Theorie widerlegen – und scheiterten
🔥1
Video, posted without a caption
❤4🔥2
✅ Münchner Ärztekonferenz (1989): Überprüfung und Bestätigung an 27 Patienten auf allen drei Ebenen. ✅ Dr. Stangl, Präsident der Ärztekammer (2006): Bestätigte nach eingehendem Aktenstudium die 5BN in der Praxis. ✅ Klinischer Psychologe Marc Fréchet (1997): Bestätigte Dr. Hamers Methode zu hundert Prozent und dokumentierte eine signifikant höhere Überlebensrate bei jenen Patienten, die schulmedizinische Behandlunge…
👏7🔥4👍2
Ist die neue Medizin bewiesen, oder nur eine Theorie? 🔥 ✅ Universität Trnava (Slowakei) 1998: Amtliche Verifikation, die eine 100%ige Trefferquote der Gesetzmäßigkeiten am Patientenfall bescheinigte. ✅ Celler Dokumentation: Notariell beglaubigter Test durch unabhängige Ärzte, nach der systematischen Blockade durch die Uni Tübingen. ✅ Universität Barcelona 1995: Chef-Radiologe Prof. José María Rius Chornet bestäti…
❤4🔥1
Eine aktuelle Umfrage unter Ärzten ergab, dass 88,3 % der Befragten eine Chemotherapie für ihre eigene Krebsbehandlung ablehnen würden. Dieses Ergebnis wirft wichtige Fragen zur Wirksamkeit der Chemotherapie auf, insbesondere angesichts der 5-Jahres-Überlebensrate von nur 2,1 %. Viele Onkologen bieten die Chemotherapie trotz ihrer Grenzen weiterhin als Standardtherapie an.
👍3🔥2😢2
https://youtu.be/LS0MqXWEsGA?si=FdxCX8uego6CRk7z
🔥3
Teil 1, der Band den jeder im Regal haben sollte. (Unbezahlte Werbung)
😘3😡1
Photo, posted without a caption
❤10
Showing the 12 most recent of 20 posts we hold for @neuegermanischemedizin. 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.
Republished by
Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.
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.
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 27 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Neue germanische Medizin, Geerd Hamer” (@neuegermanischemedizin), 1,672 subscribers as measured 27 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/neuegermanischemedizin.
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.