Each time I read exchanges between healthcare professionals on X, I can’t help feeling saddened by how easily professional disagreements degenerate into unnecessary contests of superiority. Lately, I’ve come across posts dismissing bioequivalence and insisting on the use of innovator brands. What bothers me is not that professionals have different opinions or preferences, but how quickly these discussions descend into classism, condescension, and a contest over who knows more or occupies a higher pedestal. Two truths can coexist. Someone may reasonably prefer a brand they have used and trusted over the years. However, personal experience can also introduce bias, potentially leading to the hasty generalisation that bioequivalence is a myth. In Canada, for instance, prescriptions for branded medications can be sent to pharmacies with an indication that therapeutic substitution is permitted. If brand preference and therapeutic substitution can coexist within a healthcare system, why must Nigeria’s own conversation be so different? Rather than channel this energy into advocating for stronger quality control, effective pharmacovigilance, and stricter regulation of medicines circulating in Nigeria, some healthcare professionals seem more invested in tearing one another down. We can acknowledge legitimate concerns about medicine quality without dismissing established scientific principles. We can prefer certain brands based on experience without generalising that all generic medicines are inferior. The real issue should be ensuring that every medicine circulating in Nigeria meets the required standards of quality, safety, and efficacy, not proving who can afford the most expensive brand or who has the intellectual upper hand. Our healthcare system needs collective advocacy, evidence-based discussions, and professional solidarity, not superiority contests. We have bigger problems to solve.