Why Did the Wall Street Journal Take a Swing at Hims?

A Tale of Hair, Health, and Power Plays

Disclaimer: I’m a physician affiliated with Regeneris Elite Men’s Health Clinic, where (at times) I help patients with treatments like finasteride. Views here are my own, based on experience and a healthy skepticism of the system.

If you’ve been anywhere near the internet lately, you’ve probably seen the buzz about finasteride—a little pill that’s been around for decades, quietly helping guys keep their hair and ease prostate woes. But lately, it’s been thrust into a weird spotlight. On March 13, 2025, the Wall Street Journal dropped a piece titled “They Wanted a Quick Fix for Hair Loss. Instead, These Young Men Got Sick,” pointing fingers at telehealth giant Hims for peddling finasteride with too much ease and not enough warnings. Then there’s Reuters, chiming in on October 4, 2024, about European regulators sniffing around finasteride over suicidal thoughts. It’s starting to feel like a pile-on. So, what’s going on? Is this just about a drug, or is something bigger—like the chokehold on prescriptions—stirring the pot?

I’m a doctor who’s seen finasteride work wonders for patients, and I’ve got a hunch: this might be less about safety and more about who controls the medicine cabinet. Let’s unpack it.

The WSJ’s Hit Piece: A Closer Look

The WSJ story zooms in on guys like Mark Millich, a 26-year-old who ordered finasteride from Hims after a quick online quiz—no doctor chat required. Soon after, he’s hit with anxiety, dizziness, and some pretty personal side effects (think libido crash and beyond). The article paints Hims as a reckless middleman, exploiting a loophole that lets telehealth skip the side-effect warnings drugmakers have to plaster on TV ads. It’s a grim tale, backed by interviews with 17 men who say they got burned, and experts warning of “post-finasteride syndrome”—lingering issues after quitting the drug.

But here’s the rub: the WSJ had to issue a correction. They first said Hims only charged for drugs, not consults, implying a cash-grab with no oversight. Turns out, Hims’ fees cover both—oops.

That slip makes you wonder: was this a rush job? And why Hims, specifically? The timing’s curious, coming after Hims’ ballsy Super Bowl ad that aired a month earlier, on February 9, 2025, slamming the healthcare system for overpriced meds. Coincidence? Maybe not.

The Super Bowl Ad That Ruffled Feathers

Picture this: Super Bowl Sunday, millions glued to their screens, and Hims drops a bombshell. Set to Childish Gambino’s “This Is America,” the ad calls obesity “America’s deadliest epidemic,” blasts the $160 billion weight-loss industry, and accuses Big Pharma of pricing meds “for profits, not patients.” Then it pitches Hims’ affordable weight-loss drugs—compounded versions of stuff like Ozempic—as a fix. No long list of side effects, just a tiny disclaimer about not being FDA-approved. It’s a middle finger to the establishment, and it worked: Hims saw a 650% traffic spike post-game.

But it also pissed people off. Senators Dick Durbin and Roger Marshall fired off a letter to the FDA, crying foul over missing risk warnings. Pharma trade groups like PhRMA and the Partnership for Safe Medicines tried to get it yanked, claiming it broke advertising rules. Hims shrugged it off, saying it’s under FTC jurisdiction, not FDA’s, and doesn’t have to play by the same rules as Big Pharma. The ad’s message? The system’s rigged—and Hims is here to break it. That’s not a message the prescription gatekeepers want out there.

Is This About Finasteride—or the Stranglehold?

Here’s where it gets juicy. Hims isn’t just about hair loss; it’s a telehealth disruptor shaking up how we get meds. Finasteride’s been around since the ‘90s—first for prostates, then hair—and it’s got a solid track record. It cuts DHT (a hormone shrinking hair follicles and puffing up prostates) by about 70%, grows hair for most guys, and eases urinary issues for older men. Side effects? Sure, about 1.7% more guys on it than placebo report sexual hiccups, per Merck’s trials. Depression’s rarer, and big studies like the Prostate Cancer Prevention Trial (18,000+ men) show no extra deaths—just a perk of 25% less low-grade prostate cancer.

So why the WSJ’s doom-and-gloom take? Maybe it’s less about finasteride and more about Hims’ threatening the prescription racket. Doctors and hospitals have long held the keys—see a doc, pay for the visit, get your script. It’s a tollbooth system, and telehealth’s kicking the gate open. Hims’ Super Bowl ad didn’t mention finasteride, but its “Sick of the System” vibe ties right into why the WSJ might’ve gone after them: Hims is loud about busting the stranglehold. In places like Mexico City, you can grab Viagra OTC without the world’s ending. Why not finasteride here?

Big Medicine’s Playbook?

The WSJ piece smells like a pushback from “big medicine”—the pharma-hospital-doctor trifecta that thrives on control. Hims raked in $1.5 billion last year, serving over 2 million people. That’s a threat to the old guard. The article leans hard on rare horror stories, not the millions who’ve used finasteride fine for 30 years. At my current and previous medical offices, we’ve seen it help (definitely) guys keep their hair and (presumably) dodge prostate surgeries—real preventive wins the WSJ skips over.

The Super Bowl ad’s fallout might’ve lit the fuse. Pharma’s got deep pockets and doesn’t like upstarts like Hims’ calling out their game. The WSJ (perhaps with a Pharma-friendly – or Pharma-business-friendly readership) could be a perfect megaphone for a counterpunch—especially after Hims dared regulators and lawmakers to rethink the rules. Add Reuters’ EU angle, and it’s starting to look like a coordinated “Astroturf” campaign—fake grassroots outrage to protect the prescription monopoly.

What’s Really at Stake?

Finasteride’s not perfect—some guys do get side effects, and they deserve to know the risks. But the data says it’s safe and effective for most. The real fight here might be power: who gets to decide what you put in your body. Telehealth’s making healthcare less of a walled garden, and that scares the folks who’ve been charging at the gate. Hims’ ad wasn’t subtle—it was a battle cry against a system that’s more about profit than patients. The WSJ’s response? Maybe a warning shot to keep the rebels in line.

If you’re eyeing finasteride, don’t let the headlines spook you. At Regeneris Elite Men’s Health Clinic, we tailor it—oral or topical—to fit you, with clear talk about pros (hair, prostate health) and cons (rare side effects). Same goes at New England Center for Hair Restoration. The science backs it; the noise doesn’t change that. Visit us to cut through the hype and see what works for you.

The WSJ vs. Hims saga isn’t just about a pill—it’s about who owns your health choices. And that’s a story worth watching.