WhatsApp Vaccine Discourse (WhaVax): An Expert-Annotated Dataset and Benchmark for Health Misinformation Detection

Health misinformation circulating during pandemics can gain traction rapidly, creating harmful narratives that compete with public health guidance. Most topic-modelling pipelines treat engagement as an external outcome, limiting their ability to prioritise semantically coherent topics that are also rapidly diffusing. We introduce BERTopic-VP, a virality-prioritised topic-modelling framework that combines contextual embedding-based clustering (BERTopic) with a post hoc Virality Prioritisation (VP) layer. The pipeline is complemented by a two-stage hybrid misinformation detection module that fuses a supervised content-based classifier with an external verification signal derived from public-health knowledge bases. Applied to three benchmark datasets, COVID-19_FNIR, Monkeypox, and Constraint, the framework achieves strong classification performance, with F1 up to 0.950 and ROC-AUC up to 0.989, while identifying high-impact clusters under top 1%, 5%, and 10% VP thresholds. For datasets without native engagement metadata, prioritisation is based on a logistic propensity-to-spread score, used as an ordinal proxy for diffusion potential rather than a direct measure of engagement. The results show that integrating semantic structure, virality-aware ranking, and affective-linguistic profiling enables scalable and interpretable comparative analysis of misinformation across pandemics. The proposed framework supports monitoring-oriented early warning by surfacing low-volume but high-risk narratives for analyst review.

Vaccination remains a cornerstone of global public health, yet the COVID-19 pandemic exposed how online misinformation, political polarization, and declining institutional trust can undermine immunization efforts. Most of the prior computational studies that analyzed vaccine discourse on social platforms focus on English-language data, specific vaccines, or short time windows, impairing our understanding of long-term dynamics in high-impact, non-English contexts like Brazil, home to one of the world's most comprehensive immunization systems. We here present the largest longitudinal study of Brazil's vaccine discourse on YouTube, leveraging a semi-supervised stance detection framework that combines self-labeling and self-training to classify nearly 1.4 million comments. By integrating stance with temporal patterns, engagement metrics, and channel taxonomy (legacy media, science communicators, digital-native outlets), we map how pro- and anti-vaccine narratives evolve and circulate within a hybrid media ecosystem. Our results show that semi-supervised learning substantially improves stance classification robustness, enabling fine-grained tracking of public attitudes across Brazil's full immunization schedule. Polarization spikes during epidemiological crises, especially COVID-19, but becomes fragmented across vaccines and interaction patterns in the post-pandemic period. Notably, science communication and digital-native channels emerge as the primary loci of both supportive and oppositional engagement, revealing structural vulnerabilities in contemporary health communication. Thus, our work advances computational methods for large-scale stance modeling while offering actionable evidence for public health agencies, platform governance, and online information ecosystems.

Health misinformation remains one of the most pressing challenges on social media, particularly when cultural traditions intersect with scientific-sounding claims. These dynamics are not only global but also deeply local, manifesting in culturally specific controversies that require careful analysis. Motivated by this, we examine 100 YouTube transcripts that promote or debunk cow urine (gomutra) as a health remedy, focusing on rhetorical strategies such as appeals to authority, efficacy appeals, and conspiracy framing. We employ large language models (LLMs) including GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-4.1, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and Mistral Medium 3 to annotate transcripts using a 14-category taxonomy of persuasive tactics. Our analysis reveals that promoters predominantly rely on efficacy appeals and social proof, while debunkers emphasize authority and rebuttal. Human evaluation of a subset of annotations yielded 90.1% inter-annotator agreement, confirming the reliability of our taxonomy and validation process. This work advances computational methods for misinformation analysis and demonstrates how LLMs can support large-scale studies of cultural discourse online.