I also don't expect to get many (if any) answers to our questions before April. I see it more as a way to "educate ourselves" about what questions are most important and why, so that when the results come out we can compare what has been published against our questions. We'll be better prepared to understand the results, and we'll better understand where the published results fail to answer our questions.
Here is an example of a simple question we might ask: "Are 500 people enough of a poulation to put much faith in the results?" I've heard some remarks that went something like "It's such a small sample, you can't get any significant results", but my own (limited) understanding of blind trials is that this is really quite a good sample size.
As well, there are other questions posed concerning the definitions that were or could be used in the published results, such as "What is the definition of people with MS, and how were they divided into people with CIS and CDMS? (if that is what the researchers did?"
How were the controls chosen? Were they random, or were they people that MSers convinced to come to the clinic with them, and so were family members that could have shared congenital CCSVI? I can't believe that the researchers would have done that, but in a rushed study, who knows... it's good to ask.
Others have posted links in this thread that call into question how scientists define significance, but perhaps we want to (at least at first) stick to less esoteric questions.