Based on hours of nose-to-screen scrutiny of the high-resolution images, I would say...
There are a number of erasures, even a couple that I've never seen anyone mention (usually above or below the main text rather than within it although there are a handful of individual letters that look like they might have been altered more aggressively than just adding a stroke to correct them) and the slight differences in the texture of the parchment (mild abrasions) give them away, but I see no signs of this being significantly overwritten.
The erasures mostly look like short notes that have been added and later removed. They are either in a different hand and larger, or they are at an angle, as though they are notes by someone else, or they have a character that's different from the slant/spacing/alignment of the rest of the text.
So, alterations/erasures are visible, even if they are hard to discern, which means it might be possible to answer this question without microscopic examination of the original document, and argues against the parchment having been deliberately re-used.
I don't see signs of significant scraping. It looks like most of the removals are chemical, with only a minimum of abrasions looking like they were removed with a physical tool. Some of them, however (e.g., what appears to be an Ex Libris on the first page) appear to have been significantly abraded/scraped in some way.
Nevertheless, despite scattered signs of removal or change, I agree with the statement. The changes are very minimal in relation to the size of the manuscript and usually around the margins, not the central text area.
Vote: Yes, it's not a palimpsest.
There are a number of erasures, even a couple that I've never seen anyone mention (usually above or below the main text rather than within it although there are a handful of individual letters that look like they might have been altered more aggressively than just adding a stroke to correct them) and the slight differences in the texture of the parchment (mild abrasions) give them away, but I see no signs of this being significantly overwritten.
The erasures mostly look like short notes that have been added and later removed. They are either in a different hand and larger, or they are at an angle, as though they are notes by someone else, or they have a character that's different from the slant/spacing/alignment of the rest of the text.
So, alterations/erasures are visible, even if they are hard to discern, which means it might be possible to answer this question without microscopic examination of the original document, and argues against the parchment having been deliberately re-used.
I don't see signs of significant scraping. It looks like most of the removals are chemical, with only a minimum of abrasions looking like they were removed with a physical tool. Some of them, however (e.g., what appears to be an Ex Libris on the first page) appear to have been significantly abraded/scraped in some way.
Nevertheless, despite scattered signs of removal or change, I agree with the statement. The changes are very minimal in relation to the size of the manuscript and usually around the margins, not the central text area.
Vote: Yes, it's not a palimpsest.