I don't know the full answer, but I think there are two obvious parts to it.
The discover of CCSVI is disruptive. All the evidence says it is real and the more real it is, the more disruptive it will be of everything people living OFF of MS currently now do. That is not to say 'evil' neuros, 'evil' pharma, but just the fact that it is a disruptive development means that it will be resisted by those with a vested interest in the status quo almost as much as it will be embraced by people for whom the status quo sucks.
Freedman, Kahn et alia may well believe that their resistance to CCSVI is in the interest of people with MS because it challenges everything they know about MS and how to treat it.
I doubt that hospital legal teams have spontaneously decided to shut anyone down. I am sure the neuros and maybe a pharma rep or two have informed the lawyers that disaster is about to befall the facility if this disruptive new procedure isn't halted. FUD is easy.
You can't get your head around the resistance because objectively, it is is a disruption that will make your life better and those fighting it do so because it will make their lives harder in some way, money, prestige, authority, or whatever floats their boats. Maybe it is just a neuro who really likes working with MSers and dreads the thought of having to deal with folks with Alzheimer, Parkinsons and so on.
Logically, treating impaired cerebrospinal blood flow seems like a no-brainer. But evidence-based medicine does require evidence that a procedure is safe and provides a benefit. At this stage we have a lot of anecdotes, but only one published study of the benefits of treatment and that had some limitations in addition to small sample size.
Those are real issues that people whose careers are going to be disrupted will latch onto, even if they sit around writing scripts all day long for untested, off-label use of drugs (or promote them off-label if they work for pharma and the FDA isn't looking). Doing that probably benefits them in various ways. They are trying something to help their patients, even if it is a Hail Mary pass. They don't see the personal benefit from CCSVI, but they do see a lot of disruption. We see exactly the opposite.
Finally, medicine and many other fields are full of examples of extremely promising developments not panning out. I used to work in direct mail and we had some extremely rigorous ways of testing different letters statistically tight. Letter B would far out perform all the other letters, but when we then mailed 15 million of them, it would fall flat. Think of all the promising drugs that never made it beyond phase II. This may well inform a lot of the caring neuros, hospital administrators and others who are simply saying we have to do this right before everyone runs off and spends money on testing and treatment. These folks will come around pretty quickly as the evidence mounts. Others, will probably fight CCSVI to their last breath.
The more disruptive a development, the more it will provoke resistance. Humans like the status quo, unless it isn't working for them, so it seems easy to understand both sides of this equation and there is no need to demonize anyone. We are all doing what comes naturally.
And that could be all wrong until rigorously tested in large, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, multi-site clinical over the next decade or two trials.