And the NHS funds it, so what? Is that meant to be evidence?
Also, from a professor of that very University:
He refused anesthesia for the necessary operations and insisted that acupuncture would have to suffice, which then did not after all turn out to be quite the case. As can be seen from photos, he was still using crutches in 1975.
Something being taught or used in a place surrounded by academia is not evidence of it working (or not working), it's just a statement
Several universities have been teaching acupuncture these last 20 years (it is an unquantified fact)
More than 150,000 acupuncturists have been trained with a program that take more than 8 years studies. ( it is a fact)
These doctors are treating about 500,000 individuals every days in the world (it is an estimate)
These 500,000 people are paying their doctor every days and come back home and say to there family and friends, I have been treated by acupuncture. (this is a social behavior)
Then a statistician make a meta analyse comparing all treatments and all diseases in the same meta analyse and says "ok, acupuncture is not more efficient than random puncture".
I am going to make a guess (this is a guess) if I make a meta analyse to see if a chemical drug which is efficient against foot fungus is also efficient against headache, I will find that this drug is no more efficient than a placebo effect, but this is a guess only.