Immediately after reading an article that points out that we don't know what salt intake does, in a fully scientific sense of "don't know", you feel empowered to make a recommendation about what salt intake I should have? "Don't know" does not mean "Well, play it safe and cut it down", it means don't know. Cutting down salt can have an adverse effect too; it is an essential nutrient you are recommending we "keep an eye on" after all!

I find myself wondering how many more times we're going to read things like "Before changing public policy, Dr. Alderman and Dr. McCarron suggest trying something new: a rigorous test of the low-salt diet in a randomized clinical trial. That proposal is rejected by the salt reformers as too time-consuming and expensive. But when you contemplate the potential costs of another public health debacle like the anti-fat campaign, a clinical trial can start to look cheap." (Emphasis mine.) No, your judgment is not so awesome we can just bypass the scientific process, for any value of "your judgment".

Might I also add that you still seem to be stuck on the "public health debacle like the anti-fat campaign"; I find the scientific evidence against saturated fat to be wanting. As that paragraph implies, ultimately they did the same thing you're advocating here for salt: They skipped over science because we had to act now!!! and it was OK to substitute their judgment for science. We'll be another decade or two minimum flushing out the wrong idea that fat is bad for you, decades in which those wrong ideas will cost hundreds of millions more their lives and health. (Excluding transfats, which I think the evidence is clear that they are.) The stakes on this stuff are high, you'd better be damned sure you're right before you make public health pronouncements.