He speculates about a lot of stuff like this that sounds pretty crazy unless you're willing to take the time to understand his argument. Obviously these kinds of musings are unproven, but that is by definition the nature of speculation. And his actual medical advice is all pretty solid from what I've seen. My favorite talk by him is this:
http://www.matrixmasters.net/salon/?p=129
Again there is a lot of speculation, but there's nothing wrong with that at least in my book.
Perhaps, but that's probably why the GP talked about his reputation "in medical circles". He's not any more knowledgeable about science than his major critics:
http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/weil.html
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/science_is_irrelev...
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4431
http://scientopia.org/blogs/whitecoatunderground/2009/10/18/...
"The leaders of the establishment believe in the scientific method, and in the rule of evidence, and in the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology upon which the modern view of nature is based. Alternative practitioners either do not seem to care about science or explicitly reject its premises."
Not only is this intellectually dishonest because it has nothing to do with what Weil has actually written, but it isn't even true; it was homeopathy that invented evidence-based medicine and drug testing in the first place.
