I am not sure whether or not this will be any help, but I did not think that lesions usually or automatically “cleared up” after six months - or any particular length of time.
The only reason I think this is when I was going through diagnosis, and lesions were seen on MRI, my neuro admitted we couldn’t tell how long they’d been there, or indeed that they hadn’t “always” been there!
That would be a strange admission if they always or usually disappear after six months, as he could have said: “They are probably not more than six months old, otherwise they would have gone by now.”
Also, when I was scanned again after six months, to try to move the diagnosis on from “probable”, he said that I had a few more lesions - which were sufficient to confirm the diagnosis.
Now I suppose it all depends what you understand by “more”. I took it to mean: “The ones you had last time - and then some”. I didn’t think he meant: “The previous ones have all gone, but now you have new ones”, as surely, the word for that would be: “different”, not: “more”?
The only method I know that casts any light on the age of a lesion is MRI with contrast. But even that shows only the difference between historic and currently active ones (the active ones show up more brightly, I believe). But it cannot distinguish different ages of the historic ones.
The only other thing that was said to me was that my number of brain lesions (six) at first scan was “not too bad”, as it was not uncommon to see patients with literally dozens at my age (mid-forties). Although that is not saying directly that they don’t all go away, why else would you expect to find more in an older patient? If they all disappear after a few months anyway, why would the patient’s age make any difference to how many you see? I assumed it was simply because the older patient has (usually) been collecting them for longer!
Maybe I’ve been making a lot of wrong assumptions for quite some time, but whilst I believed it was possible for lesions to disappear, I never thought they all did.
So I don’t know. Is your current neuro actually an MS specialist - or don’t you know?
Of course, if he is not totally convinced of the evidence, he is right to leave no stone unturned, including remaining open to the possibility it could be something quite different.
So I’m not necessarily saying he’s wrong. But this is the first I’ve heard of it that a lesion that doesn’t go after six months is suspicious. This is why I wonder if you have an MS guy, or a general neurologist.