I went through the archives and browsed through the posts regarding the Cortef suspension. The comments ranged from those concerned about it’s reliability, to those who immediately were angry when they heard those suspicions, to those who’d never had a problem and didn’t know what they’d do without it. From the variety of comments, I can see why Upjohn would have had trouble finding out what was going on if they were receiving conflicting feedback. Remember there were parents who very much didn’t want the suspension to go away because it was easier to administer, and easier to alter dosage. There are also plenty of complaints from parents when it was finally recalled. From what I can tell Upjohn was depending on the various forms of feedback, including both consumer and physician. Many of the posts expressed frustration at physicians who would not listen when they were told about problems. Thus adding to the confusion.

During the 50’s and 60’s there was an epidemic in Japan of some disease that caused severe diarrhea. It began in the 50’s and was immediately treated with a new drug that had just been developed. The disease spread across Japan, but never seemed to go beyond the island. By the mid 60’s some doctors began to suspect the origin of the disease. No virus or bacteria had yet been found that caused it. Finally some doctors began to question the "miracle" medication that had been prescribed to treat it. Several patients were put on different medication, and the condition cleared up instantly. Tests were done and it turned out that, indeed, the medication, which had never been approved in the US or Europe, was causing the condition all along. Alerts were issued and doctors all across Japan were notified of the findings. Even after that it took almost a decade to finally convince all the doctors that the disease was nothing more than the side affects of the very drug they’d been prescribing their patients. The reason was that the doctors refused to believe that they themselves had caused the long term illness and even deaths of their patients. A virus or bacteria made a much easier scapegoat, and they rationalized continued treatment of the patients with the medicine they’d been warned was causing the condition.

Blaming the "big, mean" pharmaceutical company is an easy out, but when you realize that while they were receiving one type of feedback from some consumers and doctors, they were receiving the opposite feedback from other consumers and doctors. Some people were expressing concerns that they would have no effective way of giving the medicine to their children without the suspension. So their hesitation at yanking the suspension should be understandable in the face of no conclusive evidence that the problem wasn’t due to parents not shaking it enough, pharmacists not dispensing it right or maybe even substitutes used and the consumer assuming it was Upjohn’s (there are several posts describing pharmacists using a "suspension recipe" to make an alternative).

I had something similar happen to me. Several years ago when I was working as an optician, my boss was continually coming to me complaining that people were bringing in glasses with loose lenses, and that I obviously wasn’t doing a very good job. Then one day while eating my lunch in my car I looked up and read the sign the boss had had up. "Lenses loose, bring them to us." I went in and asked him that when someone brought in loose lenses, he find out who made them. He never bothered me again. It turned out all of the loose lenses had been made elsewhere. Not a single customer had ever complained about loose lenses in glasses that I had made.