A Hundred Years of Hashimoto's Thyroiditis (or is that 101?)

A Hundred Years of Hashimoto's Thyroiditis (or is that 101?)

It's nice when the medical profession catch up with us!

Last year I posted a blog to "celebrate" the centenntial of Hashimoto's paper describing the thyroid disease named after him:


This year (which I make 101 years after first publication in 1912!), Professor Weetman has published a paper.

Thyroid. 2013 Feb;23(2):135-6. doi: 10.1089/thy.2013.2302.ed1.

A Hundred Years of Hashimoto's Thyroiditis.

Weetman A.


Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health, University of Sheffield , Sheffield, United Kingdom .



[PubMed - in process]

It would be nice to know what he has written - but it is not visible there - not even linked!

A search did find the paper - behind a firewall. If you zoom in your browser you might be able to read the first page here:


(Only 51 dollars to read the whole paper. For 24 hours.)

Certainly it strongly suggests that the huge increase in numbers is almost certainly environmental in cause - and that is all I can read. :-(


12 Replies

  • spooky, maybe, just maybe, certain folks are actually considering researching what they pretend to know? (preach) can't see anything either, just the hint of something changing?

    Acorns come to mind. J :D

  • Rod, I would like to see the complete sentence right after that relating to iodine but I'm not paying $51.00 for it. Increase in iodine, where? In the US during the second half of the 1900's I think we actually had a decrease in iodine intake. I think we will make the Roman's lead plates look like childs play. I sometimes wonder if the size and/or efficiency of ones liver, as it relates to the ability to filter out toxins, will become a major factor in evolution over the next few hundred years. Then again they have done several studies in Europe and the US which show a dramatic decrease in male sperm count over the last 50 years so maybe that will also be a major factor in evolution. One would think that they might want to find the cause of that problem. PR

  • I think they have a fair idea of the cause of the decline in male fertility. Nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, everything to do with the environment being saturated with oestrogen-mimicking chemicals leaching out from plastics and discharged from manufacturing plants - and it has also been mooted that the hormones passed in urine by women on the birth control pill or HRT do not get completely removed by water purification. There is so much oestrogen in some rivers that male fish have become female.

  • I would hazard a guess that a large percentage of the increase in many diseases in modern times could be traced either to environmental pollution or to chemical and artificial foodstuffs.

  • In the uk they florinate our water now , floride is not good for the thyroid according to Dr Peatfield

  • The only recent change to fluoridation in the UK I am aware of is in Southampton. And I am not sure that has actually started yet.

    And the extent of fluoridation was always limited (e.g. Birmingham). Here's a map:


    That is NOT to suggest this does not affect a large number of people - it does!


  • the last sentence reads..a recent study showing increases in subclinical hypothyroidism and autoimmune....

    I cant get to rest of it but do remember Dr Anthony's article stating that if the TSH test was normal one had a somataform disorder ie., hypochondria or type of psychiatric disorder.

    Wish I could read the rest and where this study was done, on how many and was it based on just TSH. Wondering how Dr Weetman interprets this study?


  • Hi Rod, It might be worth emailing Dr Weetman to see if he'd be happy to send Thyroid UK a copy of the article.

  • I suspect that even if he were willing to send one copy to one person, he would not be willing to provide a copy for posting on the Thyroid UK web site - which would be the obvious thing to do. (I doubt the journal publishers would be very happy either.)

  • Just a thought... If the medical profession is taking a year to 'catch up' does this mean that in 2014 we can all expect to be treated for 'optimal' and not 'normal'? Here's hoping :)

  • I think there was a typo in your response.

    "... in 2104 we can all expect ... "

  • oh dear... I'm an optimist not a realist :(

You may also like...