A few points...
People are perceiving a disparity between the newsletter contents and the actual results of the study because their expectations were unrealistically high. As I've written before, because of various facts that we know about MS (heterogeneity, misdiagnosis percentage, etc.), it was highly improbable, if not impossible, that number such as a "95% correlation between MS and CCSVI" would hold up to the scrutiny of a truly blinded study.
Sure, the newsletter was meant to keep donations coming in, because without donations, or people signing up to pay for CCSVI diagnostics, there will be no continuation of the study. But the results announced on Thursday are indeed exciting, from a rational scientific point of view. They found a 2:1 difference in the incidence of CCSVI between MS patients and healthy test subjects. That is very significant, and worthy of some excitement.
All of the info previously released by Zamboni were from unblinded studies. In such studies, bias inevitably creeps in to skew the results. This is why science requires blinded studies before any real conclusions on any hypothesis can be made. Time and time again, evidence from unblinded studies has been shown to be inaccurate when subjected to the rigors of a blinded study.
Back in 2008, a researcher from Italy announced that in both animal and human studies he had found that the common drug lithium had a dramatic impact on ALS, a horrible neurodegenerative disease (also known as Lou Gehrig's disease). The data he provided seemed very strong, but also came from unblinded studies. Understandably, the ALS patient community was beyond joy, and near hysteria. Soon after, a large blinded study was started here in the states, which proved that lithium had absolutely no value whatsoever, so much so that the study was stopped midstream. A quick Google of "lithium and ALS" will give you a few days worth of material to read through.
I want to be clear that I'm not drawing direct parallels between the lithium ALS fiasco and CCSVI. I'm just citing it as an example of the start differences that often can be found between blinded and unblinded studies. I do believe that CCSVI will prove to be an important piece that at the very least will help unravel the MS puzzle. Research on it needs to be pursued vigorously and expeditiously.
As for Zamboni's wife still being on disease modifying drugs, the same could be said for most of his "liberated" patients. His research clearly states that after liberation his patients stay on their DMD's. The fact that his wife also did so should come as no surprise to anyone.
We're all desperate for answers, but, for the sake of our own emotional well-being, we must be careful to not let hope overtake reason.