The low salt advocates of course will fight this for some years, as it's 'received medical wisdom' -- although there is a dearth of studies on the matter it turns out, and none of them show a benefit of low salt. I'm posting this as an example of how the medical types are actually only partly scientific in their work, much of the time they go off half-cocked and tell people what's good for them, only to be contradicted later by further research. e.g. the 'eggs are bad for you if you have high blood cholesterol' story where it turned out dietary cholesterol has very little or nothing to do with circulating levels of cholesterol. Ditto for fluorine in the water being harmless and good for your teeth. Mercury fillings are completely harmless. Germ theory as a cause of illness and death was not possible. Freudian psychoanalytic theory is fallacious and no better than any other therapy and often worse. Etc.
"Follow the money. Always follow the money."
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-an ... 2a25t.html
Any diabetic with high blood pressure who walks into George Jerums' Melbourne clinic will get the standard advice: if their salt intake is high, they should halve it. This is despite the fact that when Professor Jerums and his former PhD student, Dr Elif Ekinci, studied the salt intake of 638 elderly type-2 diabetics who went through his clinic at Heidelberg's Austin Health, they found that those who ate less salt were significantly more likely to die.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-an ... z2DxjIasKa