I understand your point...<p>By my reading, the article simply presents evidence that a &quot;broad recommendation&quot; 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...<p>We disagree on whether or not the article presents evidence of a scientifically &quot;opposite&quot; 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...<p>A reduction in salt intake is one of several recommendations that a physician will make if you&#x27;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...<p>Recommending bodies, in instances like this, primarily concern themselves with an intended effect on a population...statistics serve a purpose, but don&#x27;t as readily apply to individuals, as you correctly infer later on in your reply...e.g.,&quot;your mileage may vary&quot;...<p>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 &quot;scientifically demonstrated opposite relationship&quot; is what&#x27;s being pointed out in the article may be eventually be validated...<p>I don&#x27;t think we&#x27;re there yet...hence, I think the jury is still &quot;out&quot;...