At risk of sounding like one of the "anti-scientists" that are so common nowadays...I just don't think that thiaminase is quite as threatening as it is often made out to be.
Yes, if you have a predatory fish and feed it exclusively on a diet of high-thiaminase prey such as goldfish or rosy reds or smelt...then perhaps it may suffer as a result. But, how do we explain those people who do just that? I personally know aquarists who keep predatory fish and feed strictly goldfish. In some cases, they have done this for years. How do those predators survive? All the current "thiminasophobic" literature tells us that those fish will suffer from B1 deficiency and quickly perish...but somehow, some or even many of them don't. To be sure, problems do arise at times, but why don't they
always surface?
Do thiaminase levels vary within fish of a given species from one population to the next? Is it true that there is more thiaminase in frozen/thawed fish? How does that work? How about predatory species whose natural food supply consists of thiaminase-loaded prey? This must be true in some cases; Great Lakes Pacific salmon species in the Great Lakes (obviously stocked/introduced) feed largely upon thiaminase-loaded Shad...but they live out their normal 4-year lifespan and grow to adult size. How? If you believe the thiaminase-whisperers, that shouldn't be possible.
Diets as varied as possible go a long way towards ensuring that there is enough of the stuff that your fish do need to stay healthy...and not enough of the bad stuff to kill them. That's probably the best we can hope for; now let's all get back to the really important parts of the hobby, like how to boil rocks to make them aquarium-safe.