Yes, it's true that a significant fraction of certain populations have an intrinsic disulfiram-like reaction to alcohol. (Affected individuals don't produce the enzyme that disulfiram interferes with.) For sure these people have a good reason to avoid alcohol.

Whether this inherited intolerance of alcohol is the norm depends on which populations we're talking about. For example among people with European ancestry this genetic variation is uncommon. And indeed alcohol dependence is a huge issue in many parts of the world.

In my experience disulfiram is only useful with people who are motivated to quit drinking. Forcing alcoholics to take disulfiram is asking for catastrophe. (Courts used to impose this condition on people charged with driving while intoxicated.) I've known individuals who drank anyway and wound up in the Emergency Department. Fortunately none died but it can happen. Anyway it's an issue because having an anxiety disorder often leads to abusing alcohol.

But the article's real story is not only the potential antianxiety benefit of disulfiram, but the intriguing finding regarding novel mechanisms of action, and that is worthwhile exploring further whether the drug ever gets approved for this new use, or not.

Not at all contradicting your point. It just goes to show we have to take things in context, the context itself being subject to infinite variation.