Great concept, and wonderful imagery at the end. However, it's obvious that this piece was rushed and posted without much proofreading. It certainly gives the article a dynamic, punchy tone, but the cardinal sin of this site is posting unfinished work to the mainlist, and there's too much unfinished business here for me to upvote.
Punctuation use: mainly to do with non-standard use or placement of commas, semicolons and dashes. e.g. The man appeared confused, and balked at his surroundings for approximately thirty seconds - after which, he began to scream, and tore at his clothing. I'd drop the comma after "after which", probably go for "he began to scream and tear at his clothing", and replace the dash with a comma.
Tone: mostly good, but for me the pendulum swings too far in the direction of "writing to maximise impact" and away from "writing to perfectly fit scientific tone". I feel a lot of this would be cleared up once the overly suspenseful "… – after which, …" is swept away. Another thing: though it is rarely debilitating. Using "it" to refer to a previously mentioned entity is a tone-breaking bugbear of mine – it seems too informal. Also, as mentioned elsewhere in this thread, some of the wording for Patel's slapstick misfortunes.
Narrative: as written, it was kind of obvious to me with the 'foul-smelling, squishy' etc. places were inside something's digestive tract, which deflated the impact of the reveal later. Maybe I'm the only one scatalogically minded enough to guess it straight away, but I'd consider rewriting the setup to make it more ambiguous, and therefore the climax at the end more surprising.
I'll happily upvote once some of the above issues are fixed up.
