I understand your point...
By my reading, the article simply presents evidence that a "broad recommendation" that the public reduce salt consumption may not justified...included is one of the reasons I mention in the first sentence of my reply--the variation in salt-sensitivity from individual to individual in a population...some will benefit, others may see either very marginal gains, or none at all...
We disagree on whether or not the article presents evidence of a scientifically "opposite" relationship...suggesting that there is not enough evidence to support proposing a course of action is not the same as saying that proposing that course of action is clearly contraindicated...
A reduction in salt intake is one of several recommendations that a physician will make if you're diagnosed with hypertension...there are others...weight loss, exercise, medication, etc...any, or all combined, may contribute to lowering your blood pressure...if you have a high salt-sensitivity, as some segments of the population do, you can expect gains...if not, then not...
Recommending bodies, in instances like this, primarily concern themselves with an intended effect on a population...statistics serve a purpose, but don't as readily apply to individuals, as you correctly infer later on in your reply...e.g.,"your mileage may vary"...
Science is a beautiful self-correcting mechanism...given time...it may eventually be decided that recommending salt reduction is harmful as a general strategy...in that case your contention that a "scientifically demonstrated opposite relationship" is what's being pointed out in the article may be eventually be validated...
I don't think we're there yet...hence, I think the jury is still "out"...