Sajj, On re-reading my previous post, I can see where I may come across as rude, so I apologize to you for my tone, but not the content. When someone plays the med school card, I very much expect them to be more knowledgeable on a medical subject than me. When that doesn't happen, I tend get uppity as my bullsmeg sniffer kicks into overdrive.
Don't get me wrong, I've got no problem with you personally defining zombie the the broadest possible sense. Alot of people do. Even I do on occasion. some days, depending on context of conversation, a zombie can be anything from a face eating undead freak, braindead veggie or a 9-5 suburbanite. However, I simply find that claiming medical expertice on the subject while ignoring the fact that it's simply just a convenient term of explanation of condition for benefit of the masses a bit insane and unprofessional for an aspiring doctor that knows to differentiate 'tween science & myth. Not that there's anything wrong with insane, mind you...I get along best with insane people. May I recommend in the future to simply switch to the term 'zombie-like'? That would help you come off as abit more credible.
But I now I gotta flat-out ask: In you mind, do vampires exist as well & would you use the term as a doctor knowing full well that whenever 'vampire' is mentioned, the average person defaults to the basic supernatural mythos about them?
That's the problem with claiming zombies exist. 99 times out of 100, in their minds, people automatically default to the pop culture undead version of zombie by reflex & will not automatically differentiate medical slang from a rotten, shambling horde without having to offer a caveat.
