I was assuming your were ignorant, just that you are.

Why should a naturally occurring substance in the body reduce concern over it?
I noticed how you reworded what I said. See if you can go back and notice the change you made and as an exercise in critical thinking you can figure out how the change you made is an important one.
Why does it being a substance that naturally occurs in the body reduce the range of concerns?
Because the issue is toxic levels, not simply presence. It reduces the number of issues. I never said natural substances can do not harm or L tryp was OK because it was a natural substance, etc. Must feel good to make a strawman to be smug about than actually read the links that address some of your claims.
One of the reasons so many doctors, for example, were shocked that L-tryp. got the blame was because the levels of this, yes, substance that naturally is present in the body were not that high. If it had been a substance that did not naturally occur in the body, you have a wider range of possible issues. With L-tryp. if the L-tryp. levels are not higher than normal, something else is the problem. Period. With benzene or plutonium, for example, mere presence is enough to consider it the root of a problem. And, as I made clear before I wanted readers who did not realize it was a naturally occuring substance to assume otherwise.
And there is no need to call me ignorant. I am not and this is rather obvious. I notice nothing in your posts to back up your theories about the source of the problem in the L-tryp case. I notice a dearth of support for your side of things in general. No links. Just statements of opinion presented as facts. Then concerns that my links are biased, without any evidence that the points made in these links are incorrect.
I have no idea if you have read any scientific papers, articles, biased or otherwise. You refuse to directly address the issues raised in the links and the use of emoticons and insults are hardly a substitute.
The last link I provided above directly addresses concerned and objections you had earlier, but rather than reading it, you choose one small portion of what I wrote and try to get as much milage via ad hom as you can.
You strike me as neither well read in the subject or particularly rational. You have a lot invested in this issue, though the reasons for that are not clear.
I don't respect you and I am adding you to my ignore list. That way you can continue to play to the gallery, which seems to be all you are doing now. Then I don't have to pretend you actually have an open or rational take on the issue and waste energy responding to you.
You also write with fairly poor grammar for someone calling other people ignorant.