This historiographical (not historical) paper explores the difference in quality that separates, on the one hand, research on the clinical usage of lithium in psychiatry and on the other, writings on its history. Whilst in general the former is of high standard the latter, with few exceptions, is repetitious and biased. This disparity is due to a corrosive asymmetry affecting our discipline, namely, that whilst professional historians and philosophers of psychiatry would not dream of writing a ‘weekend’ paper on psychopharmacology or the basic and clinical neurosciences, experts in the latter disciplines have no compunction in writing on the history and philosophy of psychiatry. The superficial and bad quality history thereby generated is then perpetuated by the fact that: a) it appears in clinical journals and textbooks and hence becomes a daily pabulum for clinicians, and b) trainees rarely if ever will consult professional historical sources. An educational and ideological shift is needed to teach psychiatric trainees that (like in the neurosciences) special training is required to research in the history and philosophy of psychiatry. This might prevent future academic trespassing and expose clinicians to good quality historical writings.