At the time that article was posted the only peer reviewed article showed a correlation between MS and reduced blood flow but no details on treatment. To my reading it seems fairly balanced in that context.

To some extent I'm playing devils advocate but here goes . . .

Why shouldn't people be tested? Tested by who? Are there sufficient qualified people? How would it be paid for? Would it take resources away from other treatments which we know, even if not very well, do work? What would be the value? How long would people be waiting before they could be treated? Would people be a little more lax in taking other treatments during this time? If the treatment proved not to work as advertised what would be the effect on those who had hoped it would?

Donating data is a good thing? What would be the selection criteria? Those rich enough to pay for the scan themselves? Are they representative? What would be the administrative overhead? Just as adding a new developer to a project behind schedule can slow things down further would an avalanche of volunteered data slow down the overall process? To what standards would this data be collected?