I don't mean to minimize the pain and suffering of those who have benefitted from this type of treatment, or suggest that Huggins is totally wrong about everything he has said, but in the (admittedly minimal) research I have done so far, he doesn't seem to have many allies in the profession. For example:

"Huggins's dental license was revoked in 1996. During the revocation proceedings, the administrative law judge concluded:

Huggins had diagnosed "mercury toxicity" in all patients who consulted him in his office, even some without mercury fillings.
He had also recommended extraction of all teeth that had had root canal therapy.
Huggins's treatments were "a sham, illusory and without scientific basis." [19]
A practitioner who does not wish to use amalgam can still practice ethically by giving appropriate advice and and referring patients elsewhere when amalgam is the best choice. But advertising a practice as "mercury-free" is unethical because it falsely implies that amalgam fillings are dangerous and that "mercury-free" methods are superior. " (http://www.ncahf.org/pp/amalgampp.html)

I'm not suggesting he's wrong about the mercury issue, but I look at him with a skeptical eye (which I think is a healthy thing). I'm open minded, but my antennae immediately goes up when the big $$ signs start flashing, as is the case with these outrageously expensive procedures.

Also, could you point me to a source that indicates that mercury poisoning can lower white blood cell count, as you stated? I can only find reference to *higher* WBCs. Thanks