I’m a certified clinical thermographic technician since 2014 and an orthopedic manual therapist prior to that (2007-2017), plus I’ve had a lifelong interest in health due to having to solve why I was an obese teenager - at age 18, I read Sugar Blues and my brain was blown. I learned the true motives of the food industry and recognized my own symptoms of hypoglycemia. It explained how this turns into diabetes once the pancreas gives out. I read how they even use sugar to dry tobacco giving it carcinogenic properties that sun-cured tobacco doesn’t have. In less than a year after understanding who the real enemies were, 50 plus pounds dropped. Now sugar is also a xenoestrogen (seen with thermography!) and at least twice the poison it was when I was a teenager.
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. While I’m just a technician and do not read your images (I leave that up to a board-certified doctor/thermologist with almost 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.
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% that it had the potential to prevent, it was a no-brainer to launch a dedicated thermography clinic to fill the imaging gap that conventional medicine has been reluctant to embrace yet we feel the demand growing as people wake up to the fact that this technology is truly their canary in the coal mine for finding and changing a problem before it becomes a disaster.
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. Your health providers will love getting to see your report that can provide critical information about the source of that ache or pain that lingers on.
We are not selling any kind of treatments, gadgets, pills, potions, oils or lotions. We work to give you the best information we can find. 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.
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!
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, “uptodate.com”, you will get one hit saying a study in the 1970’s (by radiologists with no bias whatsoever 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 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 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 up.
It’s an information war. Tumors are profitable; preventing them is not. Treating cold slow growing turtles is profitable. Mammography is great at finding turtles and thermography cannot see the turtles! Thermography has always seen 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 to not detect this heat pattern 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 big screening table, 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 their members. The company that owns it is in 190 countries in Health, Finance, Tax & Accounting, Legal, Compliance and based in The Netherlands - welcome to globalized healthcare.
Candace Parmer, CTT
Clinical Thermographic Technician
Founded Radiant Body Thermography in Portland, Oregon’s Pearl District
February 14, 2014
Headquarters relocated to Cinco Bayou, Florida in June of 2021
(Fort Walton Beach)
Certifications from:
International Academy of Clinical Thermology
and
American College of Clinical Thermology
Hobbies:
Candace Parmer, Rooftop Gardener, (while still working/living in the PNW)
Farming - learning tropicals now! Bananas, coffee!
Exploring Nature
Reading & Research
Time with Family and Friends
Tennis & Travel
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.
At a seminar, Dr. H. Gilbert Welch, M.D. stated that mammographers are the most sued in the medical field. Decades of legal proceedings about missed cancers, yet we are just now getting FDA PROPOSALS (NOT YET LAW) to create laws that would require mammographers to reveal to their patients that the density level of their breasts correlates to the test’s sensitivity or rather “lack of”. In other words, dense tissue makes it more difficult to detect potential cancers with mammography, an important detail not yet federally required to be revealed on a mammogram in some states (reportedly due to lobbying by mammographers who are concerned that women will be frightened away from mammography screening but one would think that they would welcome a way to reduce chances of litigation given the statistics for their profession). Some states, thankfully, have made it a state requirement to reveal density on all mammograms, but NONE warn us that dense tissue absorbs more radiation. Why not?
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 still not 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 as Dr. Christine Horner recommends (thermography, ultrasound, manual exams and in some cases as needed, MRI’s).
Note: In spite of the lowered sensitivity of mammography in women with dense breasts, The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists disagrees with Dr. Horner, Breast Surgeon, and doubles down on mammogram as “gold-standard” stating that: “The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (the College) does not recommend routine use of alternative or adjunctive tests to screening mammography in women with dense breasts who are asymptomatic and have no additional risk factors. The College strongly supports additional research to identify more effective screening methods that will enhance meaningful improvements in cancer outcomes for women with dense breasts and minimize false-positive screening results. The College recommends that health care providers comply with state laws that may require disclosure to women of their breast density as recorded in a mammogram report.”
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 who is at risk for breast cancer. I suggest it does not fit into their business model.