Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram
Telegram profile photo for Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab Offiziell

Channel

Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab Offiziell

@MartinSchwab

Not marked by Telegram, checked 25 August 2026

On this record: Topic · Observations · Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry

12,096subscribers

-29 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 10,000–31,623.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1002201252945
TypeChannel
Username@MartinSchwab
CreatedBetween 1 June 2024 and 30 September 2024 — estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded6 August 2026
Last confirmed live18 September 2026
Measurements held29
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 18 September 2026
On Telegramt.me/MartinSchwab

Topic

Politics & activism — a classification, not a measurement. An on-box language model (Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q6_K_XL, prompt version 1) read this channel’s own recent posts on 10 August 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 92% 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.

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.

Views per post sit far above this size band

8,430 average views per post against 12,096 subscribers — an engagement rate of 69.7%. Across the 49,726 registered channels in the same cohort — 10,000–31,621 subscribers — the middle half sit between 3.42% and 15.4%, with a median of 7.71%.

What this was computed from
Window30 days (22 August 2026 21 September 2026)
Posts measured12 of 12 published in the window (0 exact, 12 rounded by Telegram)
Views totalled101,200
Mature posts only69.7% over 12 posts read at least 24h after publication
Subscribers12,096 measured 18 September 2026
Cohortb10000 · 49,726 channels · p10 1.32% · p25 3.42% · p50 7.71% · p75 15.4% · p90 26.4%
Position in cohort99.268th percentile · 9.0× the cohort median
Uncertainty±0.246% of the figure, from Telegram’s rounding
Post languageGerman · 100.0% of the window’s posts

When this is recorded. A channel is listed here only when its engagement rate sits at or above the 99th percentile of its cohort and is at least 3× away from that cohort’s median — above it — on both the all-readings figure and the mature-only figure. The percentile alone would be circular: a percentile cut puts the same share of every cohort in the tail whatever the data looks like. The distance from the median is what makes it a statement about this channel.

This is not a verdict, and the direction is not a quality signal. A low rate has many innocent causes — audiences that read in the Telegram app without opening the channel, a subscriber base built long before the current output, an audience in a different timezone from our reading. A high rate has innocent causes too: a post that travelled far beyond the channel’s own subscribers will do it. We publish the measurement and the distribution it sits in. The full cohort baselines are downloadable, so this comparison can be reproduced rather than trusted.

Recorded under the key err_high, last confirmed 21 September 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

12,08312,12812,105.56 August 2026 — 12,125 subscribers6 August 2026 — 12,125 subscribers6 August 2026 — 12,128 subscribers7 August 2026 — 12,125 subscribers8 August 2026 — 12,122 subscribers9 August 2026 — 12,119 subscribers10 August 2026 — 12,123 subscribers11 August 2026 — 12,122 subscribers12 August 2026 — 12,121 subscribers15 August 2026 — 12,119 subscribers17 August 2026 — 12,115 subscribers18 August 2026 — 12,111 subscribers19 August 2026 — 12,110 subscribers20 August 2026 — 12,115 subscribers23 August 2026 — 12,117 subscribers24 August 2026 — 12,108 subscribers25 August 2026 — 12,106 subscribers26 August 2026 — 12,109 subscribers27 August 2026 — 12,107 subscribers28 August 2026 — 12,109 subscribers30 August 2026 — 12,107 subscribers31 August 2026 — 12,108 subscribers1 September 2026 — 12,106 subscribers3 September 2026 — 12,103 subscribers7 September 2026 — 12,093 subscribers10 September 2026 — 12,087 subscribers14 September 2026 — 12,083 subscribers16 September 2026 — 12,093 subscribers18 September 2026 — 12,096 subscribers12,0966 August 202618 September 2026
29 measurements spanning 43 days, net -29. 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 12,076–12,135 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded, most recent 20 of 29
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
18 Sept 2026, 04:5912,096+3
16 Sept 2026, 03:1912,093+10
14 Sept 2026, 12:2012,083-4
10 Sept 2026, 22:1712,087-6
7 Sept 2026, 21:1912,093-10
3 Sept 2026, 08:3712,103-3
1 Sept 2026, 23:3412,106-2
31 Aug 2026, 20:1312,108+1
30 Aug 2026, 23:2512,107-2
28 Aug 2026, 19:3412,109+2
27 Aug 2026, 16:0412,107-2
26 Aug 2026, 19:0512,109+3
25 Aug 2026, 15:4412,106-2
24 Aug 2026, 19:0712,108-9
23 Aug 2026, 02:3512,117+2
20 Aug 2026, 11:0312,115+5
19 Aug 2026, 11:0812,110-1
18 Aug 2026, 11:2312,111-4
17 Aug 2026, 09:4412,115-4
15 Aug 2026, 20:5512,119first reading

Engagement

36 posts held, back to 18 July 2026the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 47 pages of Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

ERR · 30 days
69.7%
avg views ÷ 12,096 subscribers
Avg views / post
8,430
12 posts measured
Reaction rate
1.74%
reactions ÷ views · ER floor
Posts in window
12
of 36 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
WindowRolling 30 days · latest post in window 31 August 2026
Posts held36 (18 July 202631 August 2026)
Views total101,200
Reactions total1,762
Forwards / commentsnot exposed by the public surface — not measured, not estimated
Readings taken2 Sept 2026, 22:54 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.

Reaction mix

7,529 reactions across 36 posts, in 36 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 29.8% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
👍2,24029.8%
💯1,47619.6%
1,00413.3%
🔥4816.39%
👏4165.53%
🤬3905.18%
😢3644.83%
🤮2232.96%
🙏1862.47%
🙈1642.18%
🕊1451.93%
🤣1011.34%
🤡801.06%
😁570.757%
🤯390.518%
🤔370.491%
🌭280.372%
220.292%
🤷‍♂130.173%
🍌90.12%
16 further kinds540.717%

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 36 of the 36 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 7,529 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 36 most recent posts we hold, published 18 July 2026 to 31 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

31 Aug 2026, 03:47 UTC≈5,800 views232 reactionsread 2 September 2026
Photo

EINE STIMME DER MÄSSIGUNG INMITTEN DES KRIEGSGEHEULS Der finnische Präsident hat eine Einschätzung ausgesprochen, die ich jedenfalls im Ergebnis teile: Es gibt keinen überzeugenden Beleg für die Annahme, dass Russland in den kommenden Jahren ein NATO-Land angreifen könnte. Diese Aussage ist deshalb bemerkenswert, weil Finnland eine gemeinsame Staatsgrenze mit Russland hat. Ich selbst frage mich schon die ganze Zeit

🕊12942💯34🙏21👍5🤡1

29 Aug 2026, 15:40 UTC≈4,860 views149 reactionsread 2 September 2026

BEMERKUNGEN ZUR CAMPACT-SPERRLISTE Teil 2 (Fortsetzung von 👆 Teil 1) Zum Kontrafunk verweist Campact lediglich auf einen Bericht der taz vom 6.2.2024 [5], der sich in erster Linie auf den Sender Auf1-TV bezieht und in dem der Kontrafunk lediglich in einem einzigen kurzen Textabsatz erwähnt wird. Burkhard Müller-Ullrich, der Gründer des Kontrafunks, wird darin mit einer kritischen Äußerung zu den Anti-AfD-Demonstrati

🔥67💯31🙏2116👍5👀3🍌2👏2

29 Aug 2026, 15:40 UTC≈4,410 views98 reactionsread 2 September 2026

BEMERKUNGEN ZUR CAMPACT-SPERRLISTE Teil 1 Liebe Community, Der Kampf um Reichweite und Deutungshoheit, der spätestens seit der Corona-Zeit offen ausgebrochen ist, wird von Campact auf eine neue Spitze getrieben. Die Waffe, die Campact gegen missliebige Informationskanäle einsetzt, heißt De-Monetarisierung durch Abschreckung von Werbepartnern. Campact selbst teilt diese Aktion auf seiner eigenen Homepage mit [1]. C

🔥5218💯18🙏7👍3

28 Aug 2026, 01:10 UTC≈14,600 views222 reactionsread 2 September 2026

IST DIE NICHT-ANRECHNUNG VON U-HAFT AUF STRAFHAFT EINE „STRAFE“? Teil 3 (Fortsetzung von 👆 Teil 2) - Er hat nur sehr begrenzten Kontakt zur Außenwelt (wenige Stunden Besuch im Monat, keine eigene telefonische Erreichbarkeit, kein eigenes Telefon, kein Internet) - Er ist jeden Tag rund um die Uhr von der Lust und Laune des Gefängnispersonals abhängig (ich kann davon ein Lied singen, weil ich mit der Verteidigung inh

👍130👏39💯2215🙏8🔥5🤔2🤯1

28 Aug 2026, 01:10 UTC≈12,400 views84 reactionsread 2 September 2026

IST DIE NICHT-ANRECHNUNG VON U-HAFT AUF STRAFHAFT EINE „STRAFE“? Teil 2 (Fortsetzung von 👆 Teil 1) 4. „Strafe“ im Sinne des Art. 103 Abs. 2 GG ist nach der Rechtsprechung des BVerfG eine „missbilligende hoheitliche Reaktion auf ein rechtswidriges, schuldhaftes Verhalten darstellen und wegen dieses Verhaltens ein Übel verhängen, das dem Schuldausgleich dient“ (BVerfGE 109, 133, 167). Dabei liegt eine Strafe nicht etw

👍4227👏7🔥3💯2🙏2🍌1

28 Aug 2026, 01:10 UTC≈12,400 views81 reactionsread 2 September 2026

IST DIE NICHT-ANRECHNUNG VON U-HAFT AUF STRAFHAFT EINE „STRAFE“? Teil 1 Liebe Community, Im Anschluss an meinen Text zur Verwerfung der Revision von Reiner Füllmich hatte ich die These aufgestellt, dass die Vorschrift des § 51 Abs. 1 Satz 2 StGB, welche es dem Gericht erlaubt, die Zeit der U-Haft nicht auf die Strafhaft anzurechnen, wenn dies angesichts des Verhaltens des Angeklagten nach der Tat nicht gerechtferti

👍4626🙏4🔥3💯2

26 Aug 2026, 02:24 UTC≈7,170 views113 reactionsread 2 September 2026

ZUR GESCHEITERTEN REVISION VON REINER FÜLLMICH Quellen zu 👆 Teil 1 bis 5: [1] https://www.landgericht-goettingen.niedersachsen.de/startseite/aktuelles/aktuelles/strafverfahren-5-grosse-strafkammer-5-kls-18-23-228585.html [2] https://www.bundesgerichtshof.de/SharedDocs/Entscheidungen/DE/Strafsenate/6_StS/2025/6_StR_359-25.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=3 [3] https://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/vorab/sachsensumpf-aufklaerung-

48👍39💯13🔥8👏3🤷‍♂1🙏1

26 Aug 2026, 02:24 UTC≈6,090 views131 reactionsread 2 September 2026

ZUR GESCHEITERTEN REVISION VON REINER FÜLLMICH Teil 2 (Fortsetzung von 👆 Teil 1) a) Fangen wir einmal mit dem praktischen Ergebnis an: Das LG Göttingen hatte wegen Untreue eine Haftstrafe von 3 Jahren und 9 Monaten für tat- und schuldangemessen gehalten. Dadurch, dass 5 Monate U-Haft nicht angerechnet werden, wird Reiner Füllmich, wenn man U-Haft und Strafhaft zusammenrechnet, in der Summe 4 Jahre und 2 Monate im Ge

💯7128🔥14👍12👌3🙏2🤷‍♂1

26 Aug 2026, 02:24 UTC≈6,890 views233 reactionsread 2 September 2026

ZUR GESCHEITERTEN REVISION VON REINER FÜLLMICH Teil 5 (Fortsetzung von 👆 Teil 4) Erinnern wir uns: Im „Sachsen-Sumpf“ sollen Richter und Staatsanwälte ein Kinderbordell besucht haben. Bewiesen wurde das nie. Der Aufklärungswille der damaligen sächsischen Staatsregierung hielt sich in Grenzen [3]. Angeklagt wurden stattdessen jene Prostituierten, die besagte Richter und Staatsanwälte als ihre Freier erkannt haben wol

👏10642💯39👍17🔥14🙏73🤔2

26 Aug 2026, 02:24 UTC≈6,450 views134 reactionsread 2 September 2026

ZUR GESCHEITERTEN REVISION VON REINER FÜLLMICH Teil 3 (Fortsetzung von 👆 Teil 2) § 51 Absatz 1 Satz 2 StGB soll vor allem rechtsmissbräuchliches Verteidigungsverhalten sanktionieren: Wer den Prozess mutwillig verschleppt, soll dann eben im Endergebnis länger sitzen müssen. Aber das räumt die Bedenken vor dem Hintergrund des Art. 103 Abs. 2 GG nicht aus, sondern verstärkt sie eher noch: Ab wann ist Verteidigungsverha

💯7535🔥11👏6🙏3👍21🤷‍♂1

26 Aug 2026, 02:24 UTC≈6,130 views134 reactionsread 2 September 2026

ZUR GESCHEITERTEN REVISION VON REINER FÜLLMICH Teil 4 (Fortsetzung von 👆 Teil 3) Nach Art. 101 Abs. 1 Satz 2 GG darf niemand seinem gesetzlichen Richter entzogen werden. Gesetzlich in diesem Sinne ist nur ein Richter, auf dessen Unvoreingenommenheit sich die Verfahrensbeteiligten verlassen können. § 51 Abs. 1 Satz 2 StGB gewährleistet diese Unvoreingenommenheit nicht und ist daher auch aus diesem Grunde verfassungsw

💯7131🔥14👍12🙏5🤷‍♂1

26 Aug 2026, 02:24 UTC≈14,000 views151 reactionsread 2 September 2026

ZUR GESCHEITERTEN REVISION VON REINER FÜLLMICH Teil 1 Liebe Community, Seit einigen Tagen ist bekannt: Reiner Füllmich ist rechtskräftig verurteilt. Seine Revision wurde verworfen. Was bleibt, sind kritische Fragen. Aber der Reihe nach: 1. Bekanntlich war Reiner Füllmich vom LG Göttingen mit Urteil vom 24.4.2025 - 5 KLs 504 Js 35904/22 (18/23) wegen Untreue zu einer Freiheitsstrafe von 3 Jahren und 9 Monaten verur

💯7839🔥19👏7🙏5👍2🤷‍♂1

Showing the 12 most recent of 36 posts we hold for @MartinSchwab. 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.

Forward network

Republished by

Channels on the register that have forwarded this channel's posts into their own feed.

Republished by 61 registered channels. The 48 listed are the ones that have forwarded the most posts; the rest are counted here but not each listed.

impfen-nein-danke.de offiziell | Vorsprung durch Wissen
@impfen_nein_danke · 12,316
6 posts
Anwälte-für-Aufklärung
@Anwaelte_fuer_Aufklaerung · 48,456
5 posts
Care4Truth — Masken tragen; ein Risiko?
@Care4Truth · 1,021
5 posts
Kanal Freiheit und Selbstbestimmung
@Kanal_Freiheit · 53
3 posts
Reiner Fuellmich 🇩🇪/🇦🇹/🇨🇭
@ReinerFuellmich · 90,546
3 posts
Der Waldgang
@WaldgangAlbdruck · 14,565
3 posts
AllerleyRaum
@allerleyraum_status · 180
3 posts
[ST] Demokratische Montagsspaziergänge Sachsen-Anhalt
@demo_sachsenanhalt_montag · 37
3 posts
Psychotherapeut*innen stehen auf!- Infokanal 🦋 offiziell
@PT_stehen_auf · 1,428
2 posts
Archiv - Solinger Widerstand
@SolingerWiderstandArchiv · 19
2 posts
WHO Pakt Nein!
@WHOPaktNein · 92
2 posts
dieBasis BW Infokanal
@dieBasisBW · 487
2 posts
Freie Linke Zukunft Nachrichten
@freielinke · 2,556
2 posts
Et bliev nix wie et wor
@friedenundwahrhaftigkeit · 10
2 posts
Gegenoffensive
@gegenoffensive · 131
2 posts
Mündige Bürger Viersen
@muendigebuergerviersen · 73
2 posts
Naturheilpraxis Gabriele Drews - Heilpraktikerin
@naturheilpraxislehrte · 7
2 posts
Oliver Janich & Team
@oliverjanich · 107,695
2 posts
❤️Frangipani❤️
@wirsinddubist · 110
2 posts
ChristenStehenAuf
@ChristenStehenAuf_de · 803
1 post
David gegen COVID
@David_vs_Covid · 872
1 post
Die Bielefeld Bewegung
@DieBielefeldBewegung · 83
1 post
Für alle Kinder!
@Fuer_alle_Kinder · 978
1 post
Gerhard Wisnewski&Team
@GWisnewski · 46,271
1 post
GeZeitenwechsel (Infokanal)
@GeZeitenwechselInfokanal · 84
1 post
HOPE 💗🌸💗💗☀️💖🌼
@HOPE2025 · 3
1 post
HändewegvonunserenKindern
@HaendewegvonunserenKinderneV · 577
1 post
🇨🇭Denke selbst🇨🇭
@Hinterfrage_alles · 147
1 post
📯 BÜRGERINFORMATIVE - 🗞 News
@buergerinformative · 7,766
1 post
Covid-Injektion & Co. Sicherheit - Wirksamkeit - Notwendigkeit
@covidimpf · 14,242
1 post
Dave Brych Kanal
@davebrych_public · 27,778
1 post
[BB] Demokratische Montagsspaziergänge Brandenburg
@demo_brandenburg_montag · 67
1 post
[HB] Demokratische Montagsspaziergänge Bremen
@demo_bremen_montag · 48
1 post
[MV] Demokratische Montagsspaziergänge Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
@demo_meckpom_montag · 85
1 post
[NI] Demokratische Montagsspaziergänge Niedersachsen
@demo_niedersachsen_montag · 103
1 post
[RP] Demokratische Montagsspaziergänge Rheinland-Pfalz
@demo_rheinlandpfalz_montag · 135
1 post
[SL] Demokratische Montagsspaziergänge Saarland
@demo_saarland_montag · 43
1 post
[SN] Demokratische Montagsspaziergänge Sachsen
@demo_sachsen_montag · 99
1 post
[SH] Demokratische Montagsspaziergänge Schleswig-Holstein
@demo_schleswigholstein_montag · 94
1 post
[TH] Demokratische Montagsspaziergänge Thüringen
@demo_thueringen_montag · 48
1 post
Deppenkanal 🙈🤡
@deppenkanal · 1
1 post
Die Jaworskis (offiziell)
@diejaworskis_offiziell · 10,056
1 post
Dr. Philip Zeschmann
@drphilipzeschmann · 37
1 post
Eltern für Ihre Kinder NRW
@eltern_fuer_ihre_kinder_nrw · 142
1 post
Für den Status
@fuerdenStatus · 793
1 post
Impfschaden Coronaimpfstoffe
@impfschadencorona · 10,327
1 post
Impfungen - IMPFormier Dich!
@impfungen · 1,435
1 post
Info-Mixer
@infomixer · 6
1 post

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 5 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.

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.

Kanal Rechtsanwalt Dirk Sattelmaier
@rasattelmaier · 38,923
Telegram ranks this channel #8 of 75 here — alongside 74 others — read 31 August 2026
Rolf Kron - Ärzte stehen auf Offizieller Kanal
@Rolf_Kron · 44,246
Telegram ranks this channel #22 of 80 here — alongside 79 others — read 28 August 2026
Tom Lausen ‼️❗️original Datenanalyst
@TomLausen · 45,533
Telegram ranks this channel #29 of 82 here — alongside 81 others — read 27 August 2026
RA Ludwig - Querdenkeranwalt
@RA_Ludwig · 63,744
Telegram ranks this channel #53 of 79 here — alongside 78 others — read 21 August 2026
Dr. med. Carola Javid- Kistel MITEINANDER MUTIG SEIN- ÄRZTE STEHEN AUF FÜR PATIENTEN.....🙏❤
@miteinander_mutig_sein · 27,312
Telegram ranks this channel #64 of 69 here — alongside 68 others — read 11 September 2026
Multipolar Magazin
@multipolar_magazin · 22,894
Telegram ranks this channel #70 of 82 here — alongside 81 others — read 19 September 2026
Reiner Fuellmich 🇩🇪/🇦🇹/🇨🇭
@ReinerFuellmich · 90,546
Telegram ranks this channel #77 of 84 here — alongside 83 others — read 17 August 2026
Friedrich - Partner Offizieller News Kanal
@friedrichpartner · 29,203
Telegram ranks this channel #85 of 85 here — alongside 84 others — read 8 September 2026

This channel appears in 8 seed channels' Telegram-generated recommendation lists in total. 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 18 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“Prof. Dr. Martin Schwab Offiziell” (@MartinSchwab), 12,096 subscribers as measured 18 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/MartinSchwab.

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.