Born & raised in Texas, moved to Oregon at age 30, stayed 30 years and am now residing in Florida. I am not a doctor and this page has personal observations and opinions.

I am an independent clinical thermographic imaging technician, in the field for over a decade. I pay the best, most experienced interpreting doctor on the planet to read the images I take using state-of-the-art cameras. Detailed, easy to read, accurate reports (that will stand up in a court of law) with clear guides are created for my clients which include findings and recommendations (not orders). No extra fees for images or to talk to the doctor.

Candace Parmer, CTT
Clinical Thermographic Technician

Founder of Radiant Body Thermography, originally opened in Portland, Oregon’s Pearl District
February 14, 2014
(We travel back to serve these clients at least 2X/year on our Imaging Radiant Bodies Across America Tours - every spring and autumn)

Relocated Headquarters to Florida Panhandle in June of 2021

111 Opp Blvd NE
Cinco Bayou (or Fort Walton Beach), FL, 32548



Certifications from:
International Academy of Clinical Thermographers



Hobbies:
Candace Parmer, Rooftop Gardener, (while still working/living in the PNW)

Farming - learning tropicals now, bananas, peppers and coffee!
Exploring Nature
Reading & Research
Time with Family and Friends
Tennis & Travel

As a certified clinical thermographic technician since 2014 and an orthopedic manual therapist prior to that (2007-2017), my background in anatomy and physiology comes in handy; if necessary, I can help you understand any medical terminology mentioned in your report and can easily communicate with most doctors with regard to thermography as many of them are new to it.

I’ve been observing alignment in bodies for well over a decade, so I can easily get perfectly aligned images, a necessity for accurate readings.

Using thermography was a huge advantage in my bodywork practice - the heat patterns provided extra information about a client’s pain, allowing me to target cold and hot areas with different therapies. Business exploded, I was booked solidly for 9 months out, my back began screaming for rest.

Your health providers will love getting to see your report that can provide critical information about that lump you do not want to cut or poke or the source of that ache or pain that has lingered.

While I’m just a technician and do not read your images (I leave that up to a board-certified doctor/thermologist with three decades of experience in reading breast images who provides my reports), I can help you understand all your imaging options, and the risks if any behind each of those options, so that you can truly develop informed consent about your situation and make the best decisions for your needs.

Are you disenchanted by the healthScare system’s method of screening? Welcome to another view of your breasts, one in which you can love your cold lumps and worry about the hot ones. It’s what every woman with or without history of breast cancer needs to provide that second opinion, if not the first opinion, because the landscape is to limit everyone’s liability in what might be missed, not what might be harmed in the process of trying not to miss. Big difference.

Women deserve to know if thermal imaging corroborates what other imaging wants to biopsy (or leave alone - it goes both ways). I’ve seen it be the beacon of truth into what’s actually going on when other imaging seems to be unable to know for sure. It assists in protecting your interests and your health and your doctor’s interests too, because it is completely objective imaging, measuring thousands of temps, then calculations to determine grade which is tracked over time. A real report that can stand up in court, not a fast food fantasy thermography report designed to leave you holding the bag should cancer go undetected.

If you’re done with being held hostage (for example, “gotta’ get the Breast Smash & Radiate before we will let you have safe ultrasound”), then you are in the right place. Here you will find tips and tools to guide your journey to get what you want or need in your state to improve your odds of not being one of their sorry statistics like being wrong 80% of the time when they order biopsy. Eighty percent of the time they do not find cancer yet causing so much needless cruelty in the form of physical and mental stress that often goes on for years afterward. And now we are learning that these breasts have elevated risk for 20 years post-biopsy even if they had a negative biopsy! The goose that lays the golden eggs in the future for the cancer biz? Sure looks that way, especially if one can believe the bOObs documentary.

After decades in healthcare and over a decade of infrared imaging and watching the medical circus, I’ve learned immense amounts of information that can help guide you through the sometimes dangerous Class 5 rapids encountered by women who thought they were floating peacefully along until their mammogram either found something or missed something.

Dense Breast Tissue’s “Role” in “Increasing Risk”
HINT: it doesn’t actually but something else apparently does, and it’s the elephant in the room

The wheels of justice and medical practice standards turn slowly sometimes but they seem to be picking up steam these days as so many truths are getting revealed.

An important little known fact hidden in plain sight for decades on the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology’s website is the admission that “dense breast tissue absorbs significantly more radiation during mammography compared with fatty breast tissue.”

Risk doubles in mammographically-screened women with extremely dense breasts vs. women screened by other means, according to the College’s chart or study results at the link above. Yet the spin by media medical is that somehow one is predisposed to cancer due to density alone which appears to be blatantly misleading and false. (Download that page because at the rate things are going, that information could disappear from the internet.)

Perhaps the day will come when we classify mammography as a diagnostic only tool and cease using it for screening but don’t hold your breath.

Not knowing anything about breast cancer when I first acquired an infrared camera, I initially specialized in imaging everything except breasts; however, after learning about the high rates of over-diagnosis and the outrageous false positive biopsy rate of 80%, and getting a strong sense that thermography could improve both if allowed, it was a no-brainer to launch a dedicated thermography service to fill the imaging gap that conventional medicine has been reluctant to embrace. We feel the demand growing as people wake up to the fact that conventional breast screening can lead to harms as well as benefits. Some of the most harmed will never even know it.



What Keeps Me Awake at 3 am :)

Does it make sense to say “No, let’s not include the only breast test that measures skin temperatures” when we’ve known breast cancer is associated with elevated skin surface temperatures since the 1850’s, thanks to the work of Spurgin and Sequin? No.

In 1972, the Director of Health and Human Services, Thomas Tierney, stated that thermography is “beyond experimental” in 4 areas:

1. Pathology of the female breast
2. Extra-cranial vessel disease
3. Peripheral Vascular Disease
4. Musculoskeletal Injury

Welcome to the future of breast screening a little earlier than mainstream medicine can integrate it or is willing to integrate presently!

Your doctor may be in the dark, here’s why - uptodate.com

The Science is on our side, i.e. go to PubMed and search breast thermography or infrared breast screening and you will get over 1400 hits. But if you go to the software used by the hospitals & provided for their practitioners, presented as the resource, “uptodate.com”, you will get one hit about thermography saying a study in the 1970’s (by radiologists with no bias whatsoever (wink wink) using poor protocols for imaging, determined that thermography’s sensitivity was too low to be of value). Ironic that thermography’s sensitivity of 90% or better beats the best numbers in the other technologies so no surprise that’s the virtue picked to twist.

Guess what else happened in the 1970’s? Mammography screening entered the stage under a fraudulent study too, put together by an owner of a mammography business which compared mammography screened women to women screened by other means. When they could not find the women on followup to find out cause of death, they would just write “breast cancer” if they were in the group not screened with mammography! (Please look for the documentary On Behalf of Our Breasts - The Dark Side of Screening. It is on Vimeo and Rumble.). Cannot make this “$hite” up!

It’s an information war. Tumors are profitable, some medical practices even appear to increase them (blog post coming!), but preventing them is not. Treating cold slow growing turtles is profitable. Mammography is great at finding turtles and thermography cannot see cold turtles! Thermography sees excess estrogen activity in the form of heat which so many of our environmental poisons are mimicing in the form of xenoestrogens which also show up with heat signatures in our breasts, so much so that it has become rare NOT to detect this heat pattern of estrogen dominance in womens’ breasts per Dr. Amalu, DC, who has been reading images for three decades and has seen the pattern evolve from rare to prevalent in women of all ages, not just those who are pregnant and nursing. This pattern is consistent with increased vascularity also detected with thermography, both potential tumor precursors and worth watching closely.

Thermography is the unwelcome Cinderella at the Royal Biopsy Ball, uninvited and mocked and smeared as if not qualified. Just like in the study in the 1970’s designed by radiologists to “feature” thermography’s “value” as a turd, so that tumors and chemicals could proliferate unnoticed and go undetected in breasts for decades. Don’t blame your doctors, their hands were tied when they signed on with the hospital. They swore allegiance to the software called UpToDate.com which is UpToNoGood in not recognizing the value of infrared breast imaging for its members. The company that owns it is in 190 countries in Health, Finance, Tax & Accounting, Legal, Compliance and based in The Netherlands - welcome to globalization via compartmentalization - limit legitimate advances to protect outdated harmful practices?!. Time to break away or force uptodate.com to include at least as much information about thermography for its providers as PubMed.

Will Dr Amy at the FDA tell you your dense tissue absorbs more radiation than fatty breast tissue? I doubt it. What I saw was the narrative became tell women to expect to need “additional imaging” and not of the harmless kind, either, sorry to inform you. And in some states women have to pay out of pocket for these additional “diagnostic” “call back” mammograms that can be multiple views.

It is finally mandatory in every state for the mammography clinic to inform women that “mammograms of dense breasts—breasts with a higher proportion of fibroglandular tissue compared to fatty tissue—can be difficult to interpret because the dense tissue can obscure signs of breast cancer and lower the sensitivity of the image.”

Dense breast tissue shows up on a mammogram as white. So does cancer, so it’s like looking for a snowball in a snowstorm! Since more than half of women of screening age have dense breast tissue, it’s easy to see how screening with mammography may miss cancer. For this reason, in my opinion, it makes sense to employ additional and/or other methods of screenings.

Note: In spite of the lowered sensitivity of mammography in women with dense breasts, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists doubles down on mammogram as “gold-standard” stating that:

Kind of humorous that they say they strongly support additional research to identify more effective screening methods yet they already have a fabulous adjunctive tool proven with decades of peer-reviewed journal articles of large studies showing it to be highly predictive in those who receive “abnormals” (they are relatively rare thankfully) for breast cancer. I suggest it does not fit into their business model. Lots of cold turtles going nowhere fast that can be removed “just in case” and slap a carcinoma label on it is much more lucrative.

This technology can assist beautifully in discerning turtles from the rabbits (fast growing) from the birds (extremely fast growing) simply by measuring metabolic temperatures over time.

Little wonder so much energy has gone into its repression. Can you believe it used to be fully reimbursed by insurance and taught in federally funded universities? The real conspiracies are those to keep you from knowing about quality thermography. They are funded by very deep pockets with sound strategies.

And a final word of encouragement, yes, there are practitioners in the healthScare system who are seeing the light about quality thermography and its perfect-fit role and how they have been deceived by the overlords that controlled their university education for which they have dearly paid or are paying still as the Rude Awakening dawns upon them.