Well . . . it's kinda a long story.

If you look closely at the legend, there are categories for:

- "probable" high risk
- "probable" low risk
- "other" risk

Now if you look at the map, you'll see MOST countries fall in those three UNKNOWN categories . . . but if you took those colors away, the map wouldn't tell much of a story. This map appears colored to supporting the North-South Gradient Risk theory.

Also notable is that Canada, most of the US, Tasmania and NZ do not appear different from each other, but we know that places like Alberta are much much higher then say, the US south, or even Tasmania (which is also red).

This is a generalized/averaged map that is meant to "paint" a picture. The stats aren't wrong, per se', but they are blended to make a specific point.

No one seems to know what "other" risk means, or why it is that the coldest, darkest, least UV/sun-rayed places (like Alaska) do not have a high risk. They would probably "guess" that it is a variance in genetics (i.e. people in these lower prevalence areas just aren't as "susceptible" to MS), but under interrogation, this argument doesn't hold water either, IMHO.

Some researchers think it is a virus or bacteria, and that does seem to explain why there are "clusters" and "hot spots".

Like I said though . . . it's a long story.

Cherie