Channel
@NatalieWinters
On this record: Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
2,757subscribers
-22 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 1,000–3,162.
| Telegram ID | -1001292587807 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @NatalieWinters |
| Created | 20 July 2021 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 3 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 11 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 3 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/NatalieWinters |
| Measured (UTC) | Subscribers | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 3 Sept 2026, 16:15 | 2,757 | -8 |
| 31 Aug 2026, 01:42 | 2,765 | -2 |
| 27 Aug 2026, 22:24 | 2,767 | +2 |
| 25 Aug 2026, 03:08 | 2,765 | -6 |
| 21 Aug 2026, 08:54 | 2,771 | -4 |
| 18 Aug 2026, 07:05 | 2,775 | -5 |
| 15 Aug 2026, 16:09 | 2,780 | +3 |
| 12 Aug 2026, 13:05 | 2,777 | -1 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 23:33 | 2,778 | -1 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 11:05 | 2,779 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 09:43 | 2,779 | first reading |
19 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 2 pages 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 19 posts for this entry, the most recent from 7 August 2026. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.
Measured directly from 2 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.
402 reactions across 19 posts, in 10 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 58.2% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🤬 | 234 | 58.2% | |
| 💯 | 56 | 13.9% | |
| 🔥 | 40 | 9.95% | |
| 👍 | 33 | 8.21% | |
| ❤ | 15 | 3.73% | |
| 😡 | 13 | 3.23% | |
| 🤮 | 7 | 1.74% | |
| 👏 | 2 | 0.498% | |
| 👎 | 1 | 0.249% | |
| 😱 | 1 | 0.249% |
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 19 of the 19 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 402 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 19 most recent posts we hold, published 3 August 2026 to 7 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.
RFK is right. Dana Bash and CNN have committed "media malpractice" for years with false and misleading medical claims. Doctors who make decisions about vaccines, responsible for the risks and theoretical benefits, should be given a voice on CNN. @P_McCulloughMD
💯15👍5❤3
Looking for life-changing reads? Barbara O’Neill shares her top 3 must-read books for health, personal growth, and inspiration. Most people spend years searching for better health... these books could save you that time. 📚🌿 People are buying these books faster than we expected... Everyone is talking about these books... One collection. Hundreds of practical wellness insights. Thousands of happy readers. 1. Barbara…
💯2❤1👍1
Thank you Secretary @ PeteHegseth for doing about this 🇺🇸 Join @NatalieWinters
🔥11💯8❤5👍1
Read the full investigation and subscribe for free: https://nataliegwinters.substack.com/p/beijing-is-paying-us-media-giants Join @NatalieWinters
🤬13👍3💯1
China Daily also paid American newspapers to print its publication: • Boston Globe: $91,026 • Los Angeles Times: $83,875 • Houston Chronicle: $69,168 • Seattle Times: $57,858 • Sun Sentinel: $30,086 • Chicago Tribune: $27,300 . . . The paid content: • Praises Xi Jinping • Promotes Communist Party officials • Celebrates Chinese state investment • Pushes deeper U.S.-China cooperation • Portrays Beijing’s centralize…
🔥11🤬9👍1
The money came from China Daily, which TIME identifies as “an official publication of the People’s Republic of China.” Its own foreign-agent filings admit it paid U.S. media outlets to publish “informational and advertorial materials.” . . . In one six-month period, China Daily reported paying: • TIME: $700,000 • Financial Times: $292,878 • Los Angeles Times: $272,000 • Foreign Policy: $268,000 • USA Today: $57,5…
💯13🔥6❤2👍1
Outlets include: • TIME • Los Angeles Times • Financial Times • Foreign Policy • USA Today • Boston Globe • Houston Chronicle • Seattle Times • Chicago Tribune • Sun Sentinel Join @NatalieWinters
👍9🤬8👎1
EXCLUSIVE: America’s most powerful media companies took millions from the Chinese government to publish CCP propaganda disguised as legitimate news. The Beijing-funded articles praised Xi Jinping and pushed closer U.S.-China ties. They are still live. Join @NatalieWinters
💯13🔥4🤮2👍1🤬1
I uncovered the names, the meetings, and the Americans who later worked for Chinese interests. READ: https://nataliegwinters.substack.com/p/revealed-top-american-generals-joined Join @NatalieWinters
🤬26👍1
CUSEF said Sanya was designed to build “stronger personal relations” between the participants. By 2013, it was openly calling the operation an “established military-to-military exchange.” . . . The closed-door meetings continued through 2019. CUSEF’s own records say the Americans and Chinese discussed “high-risk issues” involving Taiwan and the South China Sea, along with cybersecurity, missile defense and milita…
🤬21👍1
The secret backchannel did not remain confined to retired generals. Within a year, its delegates were sitting face-to-face with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. . . . The meetings were not confined to ceremonial diplomacy. The delegations discussed nuclear proliferation, terrorism and military exchanges. By 2012, the operation had reached the U.S. Naval Academy and included sitting members of Congress. Join @…
🤬24❤1👍1🤮1
Bill Owens became the operation’s leading American figure. One year later, the former Joint Chiefs vice chairman was consulting for Huawei and pushing CCP propaganda in U.S. media. . . . Owens publicly advanced positions favorable to Beijing. He defended Huawei, demanded America treat China as a “friend” and questioned U.S. arms sales to Taiwan. “I object to the way Huawei was treated,” he said. “It’s unfair.” …
🤬22👍1
Showing the 12 most recent of 19 posts we hold for @NatalieWinters. 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.
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.
Names
Channels on the register whose handles appear in this channel's posts.
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.
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 4 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 3 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“Natalie Winters” (@NatalieWinters), 2,757 subscribers as measured 3 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/NatalieWinters.
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.