Doctors Surgically Removed 28-Pounds of Feces From Constipated Man

A 22-year old Chinese man found himself in the hospital in really bad shape; he was weak and moaning in pain, his stomach so distended he looked 9 months pregnant. He had chronic constipation for most of his life and got to the point that laxatives couldn’t provide total relief from his pain and discomfort.

The patient looked like he was about to burst anytime!

Source: IBTimes
He was sent to surgery and after three hours, doctors were able to remove a massively swollen large intestine filled with feces; it weighed 28.6 pounds or 13 kilograms!

Source: Daily Mail UK
“It looked like it could explode at any time,” said Doctor Yin Lu of Shanghai Tenth People’s Hospital.

The patient was diagnosed with Hirschsprung’s disease. It is a congenital condition in which nerve cells were missing in the bowel, which results to chronic problems in movement. Compared to a healthy digestive tract, food and waste stops in affected parts of the colon. The waste or the feces gathers up in the area and causes the large intestine to swell. In this patient’s case, it has turned into a “megacolon,” and if not operated on quickly could result to tearing or perforation and will release fecal bacteria that can cause sepsis.

This could lead to death so the man was lucky to have this operation just in time to save his life.

Source: Daily Mail UK
The disease is rare; it occurs in only 1 out of 5,000 newborns within 48 hours after birth. It can also manifest in older children through chronic constipation, distended belly, and malnutrition. The patient was already an adult when he was admitted to imagine the build-up of waste residing in his colon!

He was expected to recover fully after the operation. His story is a reminder for us all to monitor our bowel movements and keep our GI tract healthy. So if you notice constant abdominal pain and bloating that just wouldn’t go away, a trip to the doctor is a must.

Mayweather and McGregor’s 8-ounce boxing gloves have started a science fight

Trash talk has been a fundamental part of the run-up to the August 26 match between undefeated boxer Floyd Mayweather and Mixed Martial Arts champion Conor McGregor. A few weeks ago, Mayweather turned his attention to the weight of their fight gloves on social media. He proposed the pair battle while wearing gloves that weigh 8 ounces each, instead of the usual 10-ouncers required for their weight class, which is 154 pounds. McGregor’s response was positive (and obscenity laden), and the Nevada State Athletic Commission, which is sanctioning the bout, has granted the opponents a one-time exception to use lighter gloves. What this means, however, is a topic of much debate in the boxing community. Those 2 ounces have caused a big stir, especially in a time when the scientific data about brain injuries in sports grows more troubling.

“They’re supposed to use 10-ounce gloves,” says Larry Lovelace, president of a group called the Association of Ringside Physicians, which advocates for the safety of fighters in combat sports. “There’s not a lot of scientific research to say that’s where the cutoff should be. But, the question that I have is, why is Nevada going to go against their own regulations and rules?”

The ARP has issued a statement questioning the Nevada commission’s decision and calling for more scientific research on whether or the Commission’s glove guidelines actually benefit the fighters’ overall health during and after the match.

There is no national governing body that regulates boxing, and the rules about gloves vary from state to state. The Nevada commission’s rule NAC 467.427, section 5, subsection a states that a fighter “at 135 pounds or less must wear gloves which weigh 8 ounces during the contest or exhibition.”

Section b continues: “At more than 135 pounds must wear gloves which weigh 10 ounces during the contest or exhibition, except that an unarmed combatant weighing in at more than 135 pounds but not more than 147 pounds may wear gloves which weigh 8 ounces during the contest or exhibition if both unarmed combatants agree to wear gloves of that weight.”

McGregor and Mayweather are firmly in the territory for 10-ounce gloves.

It’s all about the hands

Boxing experts will tell you that the original intent behind sheathing boxers’ hands was to protect them from breaking. Greek gladiators used to wrap leather straps around their fists. The Marquess of Queensberry Rules, published in England in 1867 and one of the earliest recorded rulebooks on boxing, demanded gloves be “fair-sized” but didn’t specify a weight or physical dimensions.

In bareknuckle matches, headshots were relatively rare because of their potential for broken bones. As glove technology improved and the hands had more cushioning, it allowed fighters to throw harder punches and increase the percentage directed at the opponent’s face.

With no top-level organization in charge of the rules, glove practices continued to fluctuate through the first half of the 20th century, with a consensus that heavier fighters should wear bigger gloves. But there were exceptions: When a 224-pound Muhammad Ali knocked out the 215-pound Joe Frazier in the 1975 heavyweight fight known as The Thrilla in Manila, he was wearing 8-ounce gloves as agreed upon in the contract.

For the 1968 Olympics, l’Association Internationale de Boxe Amateur, an international governing body for amateur boxing, called for all weight classes to use 8-ounce gloves. The AIBA found that 10-ounce gloves offered “18 percent more protection,” than 8-ounce versions but hindered fighters’ performance too much to make the switch.

The AIBA’s current rules (PDF), which began in 1994, exclude 8-ounce gloves. Male fighters in lower weight classes use 10-ounce gloves, while heavier weight classes (starting at 69 kg or 152 pounds) use 12-ounce gloves. Women use 10-ounce gloves across the board. Amateur boxing also allows for the use of protective headgear, unlike professional fights.

A lack of sweet science

The amount of research into the effect glove weight has on fighter performance and safety is surprisingly small, even as the topic of brain injuries in sports has gained momentum in the past decade.

“When it comes to research, MMA and boxing are farther behind most of the mainstream sports,” says Jonathan Gelber, an orthopedic sports medicine doctor and ARP board member. “We don’t know what changing those glove sizes for boxers with heavier weights will do.”

One study often cited about the impact of glove size and weight comes from the University at Waterloo. The 2014 paper outlines a single experiment in which a 16-ounce boxing glove and a 4-ounce MMA-style glove hit a sensor every 1.8-seconds for about five hours and a total of 10,000 strikes each.

Researchers were testing the durability of the material inside the gloves, but the experiment also provided data about the overall impact of different glove weights. The lighter gloves were found to have a higher peak force, but a shorter overall impact duration, while the inverse was true for a heavier glove.

A lower peak force and a longer impact duration give the brain more time to deform, and that’s suspected to be a key contributing factor in CTE and other brain injuries.

“Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy is a huge area of study across all contact sports right now,” says the ARP’s Lovelace. ”But, is it better to get one big punch and get knocked out as opposed to 100 little punches where each one does a little bit of damage? We don’t quite know that yet.”

ARP board member Gelber adds, “Longer fights end up having a higher number of head strikes. These sub-concussive strikes don’t necessarily cause a concussion or knockout, but they have a cumulative effect.”

The relationship between boxing gloves and brain injuries was a key point in an oft-cited paper called The Boxing Debate, which was published by the British Medical Association in 1993. The paper clearly points out the lack of evidence that gloves prevent head injuries: “The introduction of measures intended to reduce the force of blow to the head are of little practical value if the minimum force needed to sustain either chronic or acute brain damage is not known.”

A combination of variables

While Nevada’s rules mandate that gloves weigh a certain amount, there are fewer regulations to govern things like the shape of the gloves or the location of the padding. As a result, different brands of gloves typically have vastly different characteristics in terms of protection and feel.

Mayweather, for instance, typically fights in Grant gloves, which are known to have more padding around the wrist area. That makes them better for defensive fighters, of which Mayweather is regarded to be one of the best of all time.

Glove choice has been an issue in Mayweather fights before, most recently in his fight against Manny Pacquiao in 2015. Reports claimed that Mayweather was unhappy about Pacquiao’s choice of Reyes gloves, which typically use horse hair in addition to foam for padding and are known as puncher’s gloves because of their impact characteristics.

While the commission isn’t specific about all aspects of the gloves, it does outline a variety of glove safety standards that seem to have much more to do with protecting the hands than the brains of the fighters. Each fighter’s hands are wrapped in gauze under the supervision of a commission inspector before the gloves can be donned.

The inspector also has to watch the gloves be removed from their sealed packaging in pro fights and inspect the surface for irregularities. This is in an effort to prevent doctoring. In 1983, an opposing coach accused boxer Luis Resto’s trainer of removing padding from each glove before Resto’s fight with Billy Collins Jr.. Resto delivered a severe beating, and Collins suffered a career-ending torn iris. Resto and his trainer were eventually convicted on charges of assault, conspiracy, and criminal possession of a deadly weapon. They each served two-and-a-half-years in prison for the incident.

The fighter’s perspective

While two ounces may sound like a small amount of weight, Mayweather and McGregor will feel some practical effects from the lighter gloves. “The first time you get hit in a pro fight with an 8-ounce glove, it makes you reevaluate all the bad decisions you’ve made in your life,” says Alex Brenes, a former professional boxer. He was a Golden Gloves boxer, and a member of the Costa Rican national boxing team before starting a 17-fight pro career. Not only do the punches hurt more, Brenes explained, but the smaller gloves also feel different from the puncher’s perspective.

“Whenever I knocked someone out in 8-ounce gloves,” says Brenes, “I felt their bones in my hand.”

Fighters train with heavier gloves than they wear in competition in order to increase their overall muscle stamina. “If you can do 12 rounds at a good pace with 16-ounce gloves, fighting with half that weight should be no problem,” says Brenes. Some heavyweights go all the way up to 18-ounces for training.

Despite the fact that he’s 11 years older than McGregor, Mayweather may have an endurance advantage in 8-ounce gloves. Over 49 fight professional career, Mayweather has thrown an average of 39 punches per round. A 20 percent weight reduction to each glove represents a considerable reduction in work necessary to throw those strikes.

Still, it’s unclear if the lower-weight gloves will benefit either fighter from a competitive standpoint. Some analysts expect the change to help McGregor, who is more used to fighting in four-ounce MMA gloves. Others point out that Mayweather has fought most of his career in lower weight classes where 8-ounce gloves are the norm, so he’ll feel comfortable at that weight.

There does seem to be a consensus among experts, however, that lighter gloves increase the chances that one of the fighters will be knocked out before the final bell rings after 12 rounds.

Eating This Random Food May Help You Get (and Stay) in Shape, Says Science

Half Baked Harvest

One of the biggest challenges of eating healthy is feeling full from eating less stereotypically “filling” foods; bread, pasta, and rice will most likely not be on the menu (at least not in excess). That’s where walnuts come in. According to The New York Times, eating a handful of these omega-3–rich nuts may be “an effective weight-loss tool.”

The newspaper references a study published in the journal Diabetes, Obesity, and Metabolism, which found that, in moderation, walnuts can help control appetite and reduce the risk of obesity and diabetes. To reach this conclusion, they had nine hospitalized obese patients drink either a smoothie containing 14 walnut halves or a “placebo” smoothie identical in taste and calorie content without the walnuts for five consecutive days. The patients then went back on their normal diets for five months, returning for another five-day walnut smoothie trial afterward.

Finally, the participants were asked to look at pictures of high-fat foods, low-fat foods, and neutral photos of things like rocks and trees while undergoing an MRI brain scan. In the end, those who drank the walnut smoothies had more activity in the insula region of the brain, which controls appetite and impulse.

While the study was partly funded by the California Walnut Commission, walnuts already have a good reputation among doctors and nutritionists. “Walnuts can alter the way our brains view food and impact our appetites,” said lead study author Olivia Farr of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston to the Times. “Our results confirm the current recommendations to include walnuts as part of a healthy diet.”

Are walnuts a regular part of your diet? Share your review of these satiating nuts in the comments below.

This Is the Absolute Best Way to Build Muscle, According to Science

© Pressmaster/ShutterstockGetting ultimate gains doesn’t need to be a guessing game. Science has your back… and your shoulders… and your biceps.

According to researchers at McMaster University, the best way to build muscle may come in many different forms. Their study, published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, found that lifting heavy or light weights are both equally effective at bulking you up.

For the study, about 50 experienced male lifters participated in a 12-week resistance training program. They did the same workouts each day, including barbell bench presses, biceps curls, leg presses, and knee extensions, among other exercises. While half of the subjects lifted heavy weights—75 to 90 percent of their one-rep maximums for 8 to 12 reps per set—the other half lifted only 30 to 50 percent of their one-rep maxes for 20 to 25 reps per set.

Despite their different regimens, the men in both groups gained, on average, 2.4 pounds of muscle. Researchers also reported no significant difference between the two groups’ growth in the size of their muscle fibers.

How could this be? Turns out, when it comes to building muscle, your body’s response matters more than the type of exercise you do. Maximizing muscle growth requires activating as many of your muscle fibers as possible, study author Stuart Phillips, Ph.D., told Men’s Health. While you use your smallest (also called type I) muscle fibers for easy, day-to-day activities and light exercise, the larger, type II muscle fibers are used when the demand on your muscles increases and the type I fibers tire out. This study says you can activate those type II fibers by either increasing the weight you lift or the number of reps you do. To prevent muscle loss as you age, try these science-backed tricks.

‘People say that lifting heavier loads is the only way you can recruit type II fibers, but that’s just not true,’ Phillips says. ‘You can recruit type II muscle fibers by induction of fatigue.’

Of course, each approach has its pros and cons. Although lighter weights provide more options for exercises, they might not be as good at building strength in the long run, according to Phillips. On the other hand, heavy weights can be tough on your joints, tendons, and ligaments, so switching to lighter weights occasionally might give them a much-needed break. And don’t neglect this little-known muscle that can save your joints.

Although the study remains mum on the effects for women, research shows that weightlifting has loads of health benefits for both sexes.

Ready to get started? These upper body exercises to do with dumbbells are certainly worth a shot.

Slide 1 of 10: People who work out everyday get crazy benefits—good for them. But what about that very first workout, or just one session? ‘Overall there are several physical and mental benefits related to any type of exercise,’ says Murphy Grant, MS, ATC, PES, executive chair of the National Athletic Trainers’ Association, Intercollegiate Council for Sports Medicine (ICSM), and associate athletic director for sports medicine at the University of Kansas. ‘Depending on the type of workout you’re doing, there can be lots of beneficial changes, including improved cardiovascular efficiency, increased bone density, higher metabolic efficiency, increased lean muscle mass and of course decreased body fat.’ And most people would be surprised to know how much of that good stuff can start in just one exercise session, Grant adds.

From a boost in self image to a bump in creative thinking, a single session of exercise can bring you a surprising range of instant benefits.

People who work out everyday get crazy benefits—good for them. But what about that very first workout, or just one session? ‘Overall there are several physical and mental benefits related to any type of exercise,’ says Murphy Grant, MS, ATC, PES, executive chair of the National Athletic Trainers’ Association, Intercollegiate Council for Sports Medicine (ICSM), and associate athletic director for sports medicine at the University of Kansas. ‘Depending on the type of workout you’re doing, there can be lots of beneficial changes, including improved cardiovascular efficiency, increased bone density, higher metabolic efficiency, increased lean muscle mass and of course decreased body fat.’ And most people would be surprised to know how much of that good stuff can start in just one exercise session, Grant adds.

The science behind a perfectly-toasted marshmallow

Photo by cyrusbulsara/Flickr
Wilderness is nice, but hands down, the number one reason to go camping is to incinerate food over a fiery pit. Everything tastes better when it’s burned over flames, especially marshmallows. But before you dip your ‘mallow-tipped toasting fork in the campfire, here are a few things you should know:


Marshmallows are mainly sugar, but air actually makes up more than half their volume. They’re made by beating together gelatin or another gel-forming ingredient with a hot sugary syrup. Beating the mixture creates air bubbles, which become trapped as the liquid mixture cools into a gel — creating the spongy texture.

Those bubbles are why Peeps explode in the microwave, and flaming marshmallows swell on the end of a toasting fork. Hotter temperatures makes the air trapped inside the marshmallow expand and take up more space, forcing the flexible sugary mixture to stretch. Eventually, if the pressure is too much? Kaboom.

But take the marshmallow out of the heat, and it’ll deflate — although the stretched out gelatin doesn’t bounce back. “It shrinks to a shriveled mass,” Richard Hartel, a food scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, tells The Verge in an email. “Don’t get me started on Peeps jousting.”

Well, maybe not burnt — but definitely toasted. Heating the marshmallow over the fire can make the sugar caramelize, a chemical reaction that produces the brown color and toasted flavor. It requires really high temperatures, so microwaving your marshmallow isn’t going to cut it.

“Many foods don’t get hot enough when they cook for caramelization (like bread),” food chemistry professor Matt Hartings at American University tells The Verge in an email. “Marshmallows certainly do over a fire.”
When the sugar gets hot enough, it starts to break down into smaller molecules that then react with one another. These reactions produce new fruity, nutty, and buttery flavors you can taste and smell on your toasted marshmallow. They also turn the marshmallow skin that satisfying golden color.

Certain sugars may also react with amino acids in the gelatin in what’s known as the Maillard reaction. It occurs at much lower temperatures than caramelization and contributes to the rich brown color and complex flavors of a seared steak, roasted coffee, or caramel candies. For marshmallows that are very slowly roasted, Hartel suspects that the Maillard reaction might be what’s producing their golden hue and general deliciousness.

Marshmallows start to melt when they heat up to just above body temperature, Hartings says. But if you’re not careful, you can completely burn the outside before the inside even gets warm. The heat of the fire shakes loose the chemical bonds in the gelatin that hold the candy together, which makes the marshmallow ooze.

So, whether you prefer marshmallows golden brown or charbroiled, don’t catch them on fire immediately if you want to maximize the gooeyness. “You’ve gotta be patient and slow for a while (letting the meltiness reach all the way to the insides). Then,” Hartings says, “you can torch the sucker.”

Report Finds That Netflix’s ‘What The Health’ Uses Almost No Valid Science

Sometimes, it’s good to not trust the health claims certain food documentaries make.

Turns out that claims in Netflix’s trendy film What The Health are mostly grounded on invalid research. An investigative report by Tonic reveals that the health claims the movie makes nearly all stem from bad science.

The reason why the claims are invalid is their basis on epidemiological research. This questionnaire-style research generates hypotheses that scientists later research with valid scientific methods. Epidemiological research can only prove association, not causation, so while it indicates possibilities, it’s not an affirmative truth.

Furthermore, clinical trial studies utilized to justify claims did not study enough subjects. Generally, you want large samples for these experiments to best find conclusions. Most of the studies What The Health uses only have one or two test subjects, meaning their evidence is scientifically inconclusive.

Through these and other understandings, Tonic found that 96% of the film’s data could not validly support health claims made in the film. Thus, you should take everything that the film throws at you with a massive grain of salt.

Curiously, a recent documentary named Food Evolution took a stance against films like What The Health that broadcast unfounded claims in hopes of spreading fear. Understanding what true science really consists of is important for all of us in this day and age. It’s especially important when fear-mongering stories convert faulty evidence into acceptable “alternative facts.” While Food Evolution is a great film to watch to understand scientific basis, Netflix conspicuously refuses to bring the documentary onto their platform.

Regardless, in the future, I’d recommend avoiding fear-inspiring films like What The Health altogether. They’re just spreading false science.

Educators globally celebrate science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity

Education unions across the world are joining the March for Science today, celebrating scientific research, academic freedom, and freedom of thought.

In its statement to mark the March for Science on 22 April, Education International (EI) declares its support for the mission of the March for Science, “to champion well-funded and publicly accessible science as a pillar of human freedom and prosperity”, and “to unite a diverse, nonpartisan group to support science for the common good”.

Value of research

In solidarity with the broad movement joining the March for Science to defend scientific research and academic freedom following the recent attacks on those freedoms, especially in the United States, EI emphasises the following points:

Research must be free. Researchers must be free to initiate and conduct research without fear of retribution and must always be protected against any and all pressure that would limit or alter their findings. Research is an endeavour that is key to both human and societal wellbeing. As such, it must be pursued in the broadest sense so that it contributes to increasing knowledge across all fields of study. Yet, research can only contribute to improving the planet’s prospects and the collective human interests when two fundamental freedoms are guaranteed: the freedom to conduct research and academic freedom.
Democracy requires that scientific knowledge be publicly available as a global common good. The State must take measures to achieve the progressive realisation of scientific democracy by promoting debates and developing opportunities for knowledge exchange between researchers and civilian stakeholders. To this end, the State must guarantee intellectual freedom of research and the professional autonomy of the scientific field upstream of the decisions aimed at developing public policy. The aim of EI and its affiliates is evidence-based public policy making and not public policy based evidence.

Turkey: Threat of curriculum manipulation to replace science with Islamic worldview

Secularism – the division between state and religious institutions –, a historic value of the Turkish political system, is being undermined by changes to the country’s school curriculum, which propose to oust the scientific theory of evolution in favour of an Islamic worldview.

Turkey’s authorities plan to undertake a fundamental change to its school curriculum in a clear move away from secularism. The government has announced that evolution theory will be removed from the lesson plans “because it is above the students’ level and not directly relevant”, as explained by Education Minister Ismet Yilmaz. Simultaneously, concepts from the Islamic worldview such as jihad (Yilmaz specified that this was a concept that could be understood as the love towards one’s nation) will be taught to primary and secondary school pupils.

Education unions have strongly criticised the announcement. Egitim-Sen, Education International’s affiliate, has published an analysis of the changes in the curriculum program. It starts by underlining that stakeholders’ inputs have not been taken to account by the education authorities. They also warn of the removal of the scientific nature of education towards bias and religion, which ignores the “social and cultural structure of [Turkish] society”, characterised by a “multi-identity and multicultural structure”.

Fred van Leeuwen, EI General Secretary, said that teachers “must make it perfectly clear that we have the right to use our professional discretion to interrogate and to reject curricular directives that defy facts, falsify history, or lead to xenophobia and hate. There is a professional and ethical responsibility that may outweigh the authority of education employers, or even of governments which have abdicated democracy and human rights. This is, I believe, what society expects of us and what we expect of each other.”

The Perfect Car, According To Science

Released on Sept. 4, 1957, Ford dubbed its Edsel “the car of the future.” It was designed to stand out, but most people didn’t like the way it looked. Add “ugly” to a laundry list of problems from poor performance to a high price tag and the car tanked–its only lasting legacy being a lesson in how not to develop a product.

But what does the ideal car look like?

University of California, Riverside professor Subramanian “Bala” Balachander and his collaborators explored that question in a study that is forthcoming in the Journal of Marketing. Balachander is the Albert O. Steffey Chair and Professor of Marketing at UCR’s School of Business.

By combining data on aesthetic design and sales, the researchers showed that while customers don’t like cars to look too different from the market average, they also don’t want something that looks too similar. When buying a luxury car, it is more important that the car looks consistent with the brand, and less important that it looks like other cars in the market segment. Cars in the economy segment can gain in popularity by mimicking the aesthetics of their luxury counterparts.

The findings will help marketing professionals make better decisions on aesthetic design, and can be applied to a wide range of product categories including electronics, wearable technologies and household appliances, Balachander said. “Using our quantitative design model, product design managers in all sectors can forecast sales and profits of alternative aesthetic designs,” Balachander said.

Although quantifying the physical appearance of real products is challenging, the researchers used a recently developed morphing technique to construct the ‘average’ car in a particular market segment or brand from a series of individual pictures. Once developed, the researchers determined the similarity of more than 200 car models from 33 brands sold in the U.S. between 2003 and 2010 to that average, examining their segment prototypicality (how typical a product is compared to other products in the same market), brand consistency (how much a product looks like the average product in a brand’s product lineup) and cross-segment mimicry (how much the design of an economy product mimics a luxury product), while controlling for other variables such as price and advertising.

Their results showed that the aesthetic design of a product can have a significant effect on consumer preference, with consumers preferring products that are neither too similar to the average product nor drastically different. In the luxury category, customers prefer cars that adhere more closely to the brand, and less to the market average. Products in the economy segment of a market can gain by mimicking the aesthetics of luxury products.

Balachander said the results highlight the fine line between creating products that appeal to consumers because they stand out, but are not perceived as ugly–like the infamous Edsel.

“In contrast to previous research, which has shown that consumers prefer a more prototypical car, our study highlights the advantage of introducing some level of freshness into a new model, particularly if those unique design elements mimic those of a luxury car,” Balachander said.

Stephen Hawking attacks the Tories for moving towards privatising NHS and undermining trust in science

Stephen Hawking has attacked the Tories in a dramatic and passionate intervention.

The astrophysicist attacked the government for having slashed funding and pushed the NHS towards privatisation, telling The Guardian that the “crisis in the NHS has been caused by political decisions”.

Professor Hawking said that the health service had suffered so many cuts that it was now unable to treat the people that it cares for, and that it was endangering lives.

He also said that the government were undermining science by not listening to expert recommendations that contradicted their policies.

“Speaking as a scientist, cherry picking evidence is unacceptable,” he will say in a speech that will single out health secretary Jeremy Hunt. “When public figures abuse scientific argument, citing some studies but suppressing others, to justify policies that they want to implement for other reasons, it debases scientific culture.

“One consequence of this sort of behaviour is that it leads ordinary people not to trust science, at a time when scientific research and progress are more important than ever, given the challenges we face as a human race.”

Mr Hawking will also say that the government has brought so many private companies into the health service that they are making way for it to become a US-style system that will only provide the best medicine to the richest people.

“We must prevent the establishment of a two-tier service, with the best medicine for the wealthy and an inferior service for the rest. International comparisons indicate that the most efficient way to provide good healthcare is for services to be publicly funded and publicly run,” he will say.

“We see that the direction in the UK is towards a US-style insurance system, run by the private companies, and that is because the balance of power right now is with the private companies.”

And he will warn that claims that the ageing population mean the NHS is doomed to failure are the opposite of the truth.

“When politicians and private healthcare industry lobbyists claim that we cannot afford the NHS, this is the exact inversion of the truth,” he will say. “We cannot afford not to have the NHS”

Stephen Hawking warned before the election that he would oppose the Conservatives because he believed “five years of Conservative government would be a disaster for the NHS, the police and other public services”