Channel
@ViroLIEgy
On this record: Topic · Growth · Engagement · What this channel posts · Reactions · Posts · Citations · Telegram's recommendations · Cite this entry
3,616subscribers
+10 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026
Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of 3,162–10,000.
| Telegram ID | -1001581500288 |
|---|---|
| Type | Channel |
| Username | @ViroLIEgy |
| Created | 9 August 2021 — measured — cross-checked against a third-party dataset (ext.tg_channel) |
| First recorded | 6 August 2026 |
| Last confirmed live | 18 September 2026 |
| Measurements held | 12 |
| Confirmed unchanged | 1 time, most recently 18 September 2026 |
| On Telegram | t.me/ViroLIEgy |
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 14 September 2026 and assigned it the closest of 31 fixed categories, at 60% 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 |
|---|---|---|
| 18 Sept 2026, 17:54 | 3,616 | +3 |
| 14 Sept 2026, 13:17 | 3,613 | -5 |
| 5 Sept 2026, 23:01 | 3,618 | +2 |
| 1 Sept 2026, 10:47 | 3,616 | +1 |
| 29 Aug 2026, 18:53 | 3,615 | +3 |
| 19 Aug 2026, 21:58 | 3,612 | +10 |
| 16 Aug 2026, 21:37 | 3,602 | -5 |
| 13 Aug 2026, 06:05 | 3,607 | -2 |
| 9 Aug 2026, 21:54 | 3,609 | +1 |
| 7 Aug 2026, 07:24 | 3,608 | +2 |
| 6 Aug 2026, 10:49 | 3,606 | no change |
| 6 Aug 2026, 10:30 | 3,606 | first reading |
11 posts held, back to 24 July 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 3 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 11 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.
254 reactions across 11 posts, in 14 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 42.5% of them.
| Reaction | Count | Share | Share, drawn |
|---|---|---|---|
| 👍 | 108 | 42.5% | |
| 💯 | 78 | 30.7% | |
| 👏 | 24 | 9.45% | |
| ❤ | 11 | 4.33% | |
| 🔥 | 6 | 2.36% | |
| 😡 | 5 | 1.97% | |
| 🙏 | 5 | 1.97% | |
| 🤩 | 4 | 1.57% | |
| 🤬 | 4 | 1.57% | |
| 🏆 | 3 | 1.18% | |
| 😁 | 2 | 0.787% | |
| 🥱 | 2 | 0.787% | |
| 😭 | 1 | 0.394% | |
| 🤓 | 1 | 0.394% |
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 11 of the 11 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 254 reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.
Measured over the 11 most recent posts we hold, published 24 July 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.
While RFK Jr. urges parents to vaccinate children against measles, history reveals that for decades parents and physicians largely viewed measles as a routine childhood illness—and policymakers questioned whether a mass vaccination campaign was even necessary. The historical record shows that the modern portrayal of a deadly scourge is a manufactured illusion—one created to justify a product, not to address a crisis…
👍6💯5
On October 28, 1994, Dr. Robert Willner went on live television and injected himself with the blood of an HIV-positive man. He repeated the demonstration on multiple occasions and never tested HIV-positive. He was a man of conviction who bravely stood up to the HIV/AIDS fraud. Throughout history, many individuals have experimented on themselves and others, successfully challenging the prevailing assumptions supporti…
👏11👍8❤5🔥3
Do we really need a scapegoat like the Cyclospora parasite when people get diarrhea, nausea, and other GI symptoms after eating at Taco Bell? I thought that was already part of the seven-layer burrito experience. 🤔 Anyone with diarrhea, nausea, or GI symptoms is now more likely to be tested because the CDC is actively looking for cases. Taco Bell becomes the perfect place to find symptoms to fit the story. Source:…
👍8🤩4😁2
If there was any doubt about Robert Kennedy Jr.'s "pro-vaccine" stance, he ended it Sunday by urging parents to vaccinate their children against measles with the MMR vaccine. Someone truly opposed to vaccination and its inherent dangers would never make that recommendation. RFK Jr. was never the leader of the anti-vaccine movement. It is time to see him for what he has always been: a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Sour…
💯18👍12😡5🤬4🥱2❤1
Dr. Herbert Shelton cited Sir William Osler noting that the diphtheria bacillus appears in non-diphtherial diseases. Shelton also observed the same pattern across other bacteria, even finding them in those who are healthy—showing that mere presence does not prove causation. The findings of Shelton and Osler directly conflict with Koch’s first Postulate: a microbe must be present in every case of the disease but abse…
👍9💯9🙏2
AntiViral Ep. 12: The Bacteriophage Debate Behind Virology The phage debate reveals how the foundations of virology were built on interpretations of indirect evidence, and how an unproven constructed consensus model became accepted as biological fact. https://viroliegynewsletter.substack.com/p/antiviral-ep-12-the-bacteriophage AntiViral Series Links: Substack https://viroliegynewsletter.substack.com YouTube ht…
👏8❤4👍3💯2
In a 1994 interview, HIV “co-discoverer” Robert Gallo admitted he had not proven that HIV caused AIDS, arguing that he did not believe he needed to. Yet in 1984, he publicly declared he had found the cause of AIDS. The gap between the claim and the evidence deserves scrutiny. To those who understand that HIV has never satisfied Koch’s Postulates, the fact that Gallo did not prove HIV causes AIDS comes as no surprise…
👍16💯4🔥3🙏1
The key logical point is timeless: When the presence of germs fails to produce disease, the conclusion is not that the germ may not be the cause. Instead, an unknown factor is proposed to "activate" the germ, preserving the original assumption rather than questioning it. A "theory" becomes difficult to challenge when it contains its own rescue device. Source: https://ia801501.us.archive.org/34/items/20-pdfs-of-web…
👍17💯5🏆3❤1😭1
Sen. Bill Cassidy said it is “scientifically proven” vaccines do not cause autism, yet the CDC itself now says it cannot make an evidence-based claim to support that assertion. If decades of proof exist, why haven’t the HHS and the CDC published it for public review? If Sen. Cassidy believes HHS and CDC are wrong, he should show the receipts—not just make claims. These agencies now admit they cannot make the evidenc…
💯18👍2
After decades of disagreement over what a "virus" was, André Lwoff defined the term in 1957 by merging competing rival views from the bacteriophage debate. The modern concept wasn't built on direct empirical evidence—it was forged through interpretation and consensus. Once consensus sets the boundary conditions, every subsequent observation is filtered through the model rather than testing the model itself. AntiV…
💯17👍12🙏2
Nobel Prize-winning immunologist and microbiologist Jules Bordet challenged the idea that bacteriophages were "viruses." He argued that "the invisible virus of d'Herelle does not exist," proposing instead that bacteriophagy was transmissible autolysis, a normal bacterial process. The phage debate raged for decades, with some of microbiology's biggest names openly challenging the "virus" hypothesis. Source: https://…
👍15👏5🤓1
Showing the 11 most recent of 11 posts we hold for @ViroLIEgy. 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.
Named by 4 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.
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 5 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 18 September 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.
“ViroLIEgy” (@ViroLIEgy), 3,616 subscribers as measured 18 September 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/ViroLIEgy.
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.