I beg to differ. As someone who has been diagnosed by neurologists as PPMS and has underwent the liberation procedure, I can personally attest that post-procedure there was a dramatic improvement in my symptoms.
Is that "proof" in the sense you seem to be insisting on? Obviously not; you would probably either dismiss the results on grounds it was not part of a controlled study or just a placebo effect on my part.
Nevertheless, inductive reasoning is based on drawing inferences on observed facts and with each new liberation procedure there is starting to be an undeniable body of evidence of the validity of the CCSVI theory.
Personally, I think your personal experience is wonderful and I hope it continues forever. I really do.
Still, putting MS and CCSVI aside for a moment, is what you're referring to the kind of "science" that you want the rest of your world based on? Do you honestly think that serious science would ever buy into it regardless of how many people are convinced that it helped them, but without real studies?
The scientific method is predicated on forming a testable hypothesis; a premise that can be falsified based on experiments with controlled variables.
In order to assemble a hypothesis, a series of observations must be done first and a plausible explanation postulated. The art consists of devising an experiment which has all known variables, save the one being tested, held constant.
Narratives from "MS" patients who have been liberated, and the objective clinical evidence generated from the procedure (e.g., diagnostic tests, pre- and post- operative images, etc.) are directly relevant to forming a hypothesis. A robust theory attempts to explain the causal basis for these facts.
You cannot formulate a study without prior observed evidence; inductive reasoning is the foundation of discovery. So yes, this is a beginning and necessary step in the "serious science" of proving CCSVI.