And make that 5% as "initially" don't have lesions. The reference goes on to say that the longer someone goes without lesions the more important it is to rule out other stuff.

It is possible to get an MS diagnosis without lesions. And the McDonald criteria are only applicable in countries where the technology exists--so it is possible. Most of us live in countries where the technology to meet the McDonald Criteria exists. Don't know if that's good or bad but it IS frustrating at times.

And then there are the ones (like me) where radiologists never see lesions and neurologists can't agree on WHAT they see in my brain. One neuro saw nothing, his partner looked at the same MRI and saw two lesions, another neuro looked and said that MRI was crap and that a later MRI was good and that he saw no lesions (but saw two lesions he felt were artifact), another neuro from the same hospital group saw one lesion where my first neuro saw none and the second neuro saw two, and I'm now going to go see yet another neuro and am waiting to see who he agrees with: none, one, or two (or just artifact). Oh.... and while it sounds like a lot of neuros, neuro 2 left the practice, neuro 3 turned out to be a "consult" and not a treating neuro, neuro 4 got recruited away from that practice. There was an interim neuro who didn't see any lesions (but that was before the MRI where the partner of my 1st neuro saw lesions). So no...... I'm not doctor shopping--just trying to find a neuro who stays in his/her practice!

Anyway, good luck! It's a frustrating disease and frustrating to get it nailed down.