"Killer" does not necessarily denote murder nor violence.

Indeed, ``killer'' has the other (nonviolent) meaning: cause of death, fatal/deadly illness, destroyer, threat to life, menace, plague, scourge, peril.

The author of the article could have easily used any of the above less ambiguous words in the title, but he didn't. Hence I formed the opinion that the title is sensationalist.

Not everyone agrees that “destroyer” and “scourge”, etc, are any less emotive of words. In fact, they end up being suggestive in unnecessary ways.

I don't think you know what sensationalist means.