Abstract
This article examines the definition, typologies, and propagation mechanisms of health misinformation and analyzes its consequences for political stability and social cohesion. Drawing on scholarly literature, the study applies Deborah Stone's Causal Story Framework as an analytical lens to explain how health misinformation is strategically framed to mobilize public opinion and shape policy outcomes. The study is guided by five research questions addressing the definition and propagation of health misinformation, the mechanics of the Causal Story Framework, and the political, social, and remedial consequences of politicized misinformation. The review indicates that health misinformation spreads through algorithmic amplification, trusted social networks, and deliberate fabrication by motivated actors, and that its persistence rests on simplicity, emotional appeal, and confirmation bias. Applying the Causal Story Framework shows that misinformation gains political traction through intentional causal narratives that assign blame to public health institutions and political elites, a pattern evident in COVID-19 vaccine conspiracy narratives. Politically, this dynamic contributes to policy gridlock, weakened international cooperation, and the rise of populist narratives that challenge scientific expertise. Socially, it is associated with public health crises stemming from reduced vaccination uptake, stigmatization and hate crimes directed at minority groups, and the fragmentation of a shared epistemic commons necessary for democratic deliberation. The findings indicate that health misinformation functions as a socio-political phenomenon rather than a purely informational or medical problem, one that erodes institutional trust and deepens polarization. Based on this synthesis, the study proposes a three-part response centered on countering motivated causal narratives, building public resilience through digital and media literacy, and strengthening institutional guardianship through transparent algorithms, consistent regulation, and proactive risk communication. These three strategies, countering causal narratives, building literacy-based resilience, and strengthening institutional guardianship, together form the study's central practical contribution. These findings suggest that restoring the primacy of facts over fear requires coordinated action across communication, education, and governance.