Talk:Nicolae Paulescu

Untitled

Some links about Nicolae Paulescu, some of them in French

• http://www.lemonde.fr/article/0,5987,3208--331490-VT,00.html (fr)
• http://www.oulala.net/Portail/article.php3?id_article=851 (fr)
• http://www.wiesenthal.com/social/press/pr_item.cfm?ItemID=8104
• http://www.washingtonjewishweek.com/jewishworldtemp.html
• http://www.winne.com/Romania2/BF-9.htm
• http://www.vho.org/GB/Journals/JHR/5/1/Weber101-105.html
• http://web.archive.org/web/20010306041843/http://www.univermed-cdgm.ro/hall.html

Bogdan 17:30, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

history facts

Nicolae Paulescu isn't even mentioned in Wikipedia Diabetes Mellitus article!

You can mention it if you want to. You're free to edit the page, although others are equally free to reverse the edit. (JGDo (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

Suggestions for improvements to this page.

I think it is a bit of an overstatement to say that Pauescu's work was ignored, especially since his work was mentioned in the 1923 Nobel Prize presentation speech before the award was given to Banting and Macleod. The link to the presentation speech is here: http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/1923/press.html The significant quotation from the Nobel Prize presentation speech is: "Amongst these I should like especially to mention Zuelzer, who in 1908 produced an extract which was undoubtedly effective, but which also showed injurious by-effects - consequently it could not be used to any great extent therapeutically - and also Forschbach, Scott, Murlin, Kleiner, Paulesco, and many others."

Also, the way it is written, it suggests that Banting's misquotation in his paper was not only deliberate on Banting's part, but was also the cause of Paulescu not being included in the Prize. When, in fact, the technical reason he was not included was because he wasn't nominated. Why only Banting and Macleod were the only two to be nominated is perhaps a more relevant question.

Furthermore, can you provide a link (or at least a reference) for Banting's quotation about Paulescu's extract not working? The CMAJ article from March 1922 quotes thusly: "More recently, Murlin (4), Kleiner (5), and Paulesco (6) have tried the effects of aqueous extracts of the pancreas intravenously, on depanchreatized animals and have found transitory reduction in the percentage of blood sugar and in the sugar excreted in the urine." Clearly giving credit to Murlin (1913), Kleiner (1919) and Paulesco (1921) for active aqueous extracts. Even if the Nobel Committee had only read Banting's papers, and overlooked Paulescu's, his work is clearly cited in Bantings paper from March 1922, before he was nominated for the Prize. Presumably the members of the Nobel Committee would have at least evaluated the work that was quoted in Banting's papers.

Also, the idea of Paulescu being the original discoverer of an active pancratic extract is also debatable. Lydia de Witt made an active extract in 1908, Georg Ludwig Zeulzer made an active extract in 1908, and Ernest L. Scott made an active extract in 1911, in addition to the aqueous extracts from Murlin and Kleiner, all of which predate Paulescu's published work (although Paulescu was known to be working on extracts before WWI). The problem with all of the active preparations, however, was that they were either inflammatory or toxic, and could not be used to treat diabetics. The Banting/Macleod team at the University of Toronto was the first to purify an active extract that could be used safely in humans. Although, ironically this extract was prepared by Collip while he was working in Toronto.

Finally, this article makes liberal use of Ian Murray's 1971 article "Paulesco and the isolation of insulin" (Murray I (1971). Paulesco and the isolation of insulin. J Hist Med 2:150-157), using cleverly selected quotations to suggest that the theme of Murray's article was that Paulesco was the true discoverer of insulin/pancreatin, and deserved the Nobel Prize in lieu of Banting. In fact this was not the theme of his article. The theme of Murray's 1971 article was that Nicolae Paulescu ("The Forgotten Man") deserved much more credit in the discovery of insulin than history has accorded him, and he's right in this. Murray does not, however, claim that Paulescu should be credited with the exclusive discovery of insulin/pancreatin, or should have received the prize instead of Banting and Macleod. If you are going to quote liberally from Ian Murray's 1971 article about Paulescu deserving more of the credit for the discovery of insulin, why not go the extra step and quote from Murray's 1969 article " The search for insulin" (Murray I (1969). The search for insulin. Scot Med J 14:286-293) where he credits Georg Zeulzer's work from 1908 as the first example of success with a pancreatic extract on human patients, predating even Paulescu's 1916 work?

Just some suggestions. Cheers. (JGDo (talk) 04:05, 24 February 2009 (UTC))

• Georg Ludwig Zeulzer mentioned here and in the Nobel Prize presentation speech is spelled: George Ludwig Zuelzer or Zülzer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mishuletz (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

"called for the extermination of Jews"

the section regarding Paulescu's call for the extermination of the Jewish people is false. The source providing that quote left out the most important part: after saying “Can we perhaps exterminate them in the ways bedbugs are killed? That would be the simplest, easiest and fastest way to get rid of them." Paulescu added: "but no! we mustn't even think of that, because we're Christians.". The section is therefore misleading and i am removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.113.156.169 (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2011 (UTC)