The article kindly submitted here is interesting. Like more and more recent articles about science in the popular press, this article, which reports on a large analysis of previously published papers on salt in the human diet, digs into the process of science to look at how (or even whether) scientists learn from one another by citing the previously published papers on the same topic. The article's key point, just below a graphic that is criticized in several previous comments here, is "Overall the papers they reviewed were 50 percent more likely to cite reports that drew a similar conclusion than to cite papers drawing a different conclusion." In other words, scientists working on the issue of how much salt in the human diet is too much are largely talking past one another, and not collaboratively seeking truth. The article further reports, "Trinquart and his colleagues also turned up another factor that might pose even more profound problems in the salt research. It appears scientists could not even agree on what ought to be counted as evidence."

Human nutrition studies are notoriously difficult because it is very hard to measure exactly what a study subject eats, especially a nutrient like salt that occurs as a hidden ingredient in wildly varying doses in many foods. So correct measurement of the initial study data is hard to get right in studies about salt. But if scientists are still not in consensus about what to look at as endpoints to tell if salt is helpful or harmful in different doses, it will be a long time before we can individualize the research or do anything else suggested in the comments already posted in this thread.