TITLE: Health Guide: Vaccine Research
SENTENCE 1: The Shocking Lack of Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccines Written by Sayer Ji, Founder It is a heavily guarded secret within the medical establishment (especially within the corridors of the CDC) that the Cochrane Database Review, which is the gold standard within the evidence-based medical model for assessing the effectiveness of common medical interventions, does not lend unequivocal scientific support to the belief and/or propaganda that flu vaccines are safe and effective.
SENTENCE 2: But there is a more sinister reason for the “decline” in polio during those years; in 1955, a very creative re-definition of poliovirus infections wa  Study Calls Into Question Primary Justification for Vaccines Written by Sayer Ji, Founder According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), "Immunity to a disease is achieved through the presence of antibodies to that disease in a person's system."
SENTENCE 3: Were it not for the elegance, proficiency, and mostly asymptomatic success of our recombinatorial immune system in dealing so well with infectious challenges, vaccination would have no scientific...  Hep B Vaccine Damages The Liver It Is Supposed To Protect Written by Sayer Ji, Founder Startling new research published in the journal Apoptosis indicates that hepatitis B vaccine, which is designed to prevent Hepatitis B virus-induced damage to the liver, actually causes liver cell destruction.

Bias label: moderately
Annotator rationales:
If you make an absolute claim that the Hepatitis B vaccine "damages the liver" without clarifying the study’s limitations, then you risk misleading the reader into assuming widespread harm. Adding context, such as "Study Suggests Potential Risks," would provide a more accurate framing.
If you phrase it as "calls into question" rather than "examines" or "analyzes," then you risk implying a stronger degree of doubt than may be warranted by the study itself.
If you use the term "propaganda" instead of "claims" or "arguments," then you risk inserting bias by implying deliberate deception rather than scientific debate.

Or if you are certain than some info regarding the flu vaccine certainly is propaganda and you don't provide the evidence for this claim, then you risk implying misinformation
If you describe something as a “heavily guarded secret,” then you risk implying a conspiracy without presenting concrete evidence. This phrase introduces bias and suggests intentional suppression rather than a potential lack of consensus in scientific literature.