I hate to be suspect of the motives of this author but I can't help feeling that the intent is to confuse and scare thereby promoting under-utilization and therefore resulting in cost-savings. Here is my point - using the numbers referenced in the story:  125,596 VA patients who are new users of PPIs; 18,436 VA patients are new users of H2-blockers; 80% of PPI users did not develop acute kidney problems (= 100,476 did not develop acute kidney problems but there is no mention what percentage or what number of these patients developed chronic kidney problems); 50+% of PPI patients who developed chronic kidney problems never had acute kidney problems (but again there is no mention of what total percentage or what total number of patients out of the 125,596 actually developed acute or chronic kidney problems);  "in contrast" among new users of H2 blockers, 7.67 percent developed chronic kidney disease in the absence of acute kidney problems, and 1.27 percent developed end-stage renal disease (there is actually NO CONTRAST because there are not actual numbers to compare because similar percentages for PPI users were not provided) - we are given real percentages for H2-blocker users whereas these same percentages are not provided succinct or clear manner for PPI users.

Whereas there is no doubt in my mind that there are legitimate concerns regarding the use of these medications, I cannot help but ask why did the author not clearly indicate what percentage of PPI users actually developed chronic kidney disease (e.g.  5% [or 6,279 patients] or 10% [or 12,560 patients], etc).  Please, author, just give us the facts or learn how to write true comparison articles.