I hate it when an article like this gives a long list of sources at the bottom but doesn't provide any footnote numbers in the article text.

As far as I know the liver dysfunction and kidney damage thing is unsubstantiated and is based on faulty assumptions, i.e. standard liver value tests and their indications about liver dysfunction in bodybuilders, or people on high protein diets, supplemental creatine, or all of the above.

High blood pressure I've never heard and I, also, was unable to find anything on a search.

Several of the sources cited from the article were reviews concerning side effects. Some of those journals may be online and it may be possible to view free abstracts or even full articles, if you want to search through some of them and see if they concern high blood pressure.

If you can't find them, I'd keep looking for it elsewhere, but I wouldn't worry too much. Creatine is subject to a whole lot of unecessary abuse. At least until proven otherwise.

And remember, online articles are not to be considered reliable sources of info. No matter how good the writer's sources are, there is usually a slant, or some preconceived notions. You also have to consider the writer's interpretation of complicated data, and, quite frankly, their honesty.

I've read articles stating some "fact" based on a study, and upon reading said study in a journal found that the consclusions are the opposite of what the article's author stated!

You take as fact anything you read about a scientific study until you've seen that study yourself. Or, at least until you've seen the study cited several more times in a similar fashion.