I don't think it is appreciated that "low quality evidence" is still evidence. The Reports article outlines the definitions for evidence if you are interested (cf PRISMA for more info). It doesn't mean no evidence. And it suggest to me, at least, that more research is warranted, improving the study quality at each stage.
Evidence-based medicine is consulting the evidence base, clinical judgement, and patient choice. Sometimes "low evidence" of a moderate effect is the best option. At least, the ACP thinks so. Do you think they would be so easily fooled by foo or political mischief?
Low quality evidence is all there is. The proponents of acupuncture always trot out the argument that there is not enough research because in spite of massive volume, none of it verifies their wondrous claims for acupuncture. The fact is the research is overwhelming and more would just be beating the proverbial dead horse. Like a lot of things people believe, acupuncture is a contrivance that sounds plausible to a few gullible victims. The origins of acupuncture are ambiguous but with any common sense it appears to be just some made up shit. First you have to assume that chi is a thing and that acupoints have meaning. That's a big stretch. I want strong evidence and not some testimonial like proponents seem to prefer.
I see what HanEyeAm is trying to say. Imagine if in the 1900s someone came up with the treatment of washing hands and sterilizing instruments before surgery, but they said they were removing evil spirits from their hands and tools. Imagine further that their technique involved a lot of verbal spells and hand gestures in addition to the actual washing and sterilization. Then, to study it, you compared the spell-casting, hand-waving version to just washing your hands and sterilizing your instruments. You would conclude that there's no difference between the real magic ceremony and the control procedure.
To apply that to acupuncture, maybe toothpicks in random spots on your back really do make you feel better by some mechanism. Saying that traditional acupuncture doesn't work by comparing it to sham acupuncture doesn't say that there's not some kind of mechanism, just that the woo parts of it are complete bunk. I think HanEyeAm agrees that sham acupuncture is just as good as the woo kind, but that both may be having some kind of effect that needs more study.
I would further assume (because I'm too lazy to look) that there's already a ton of studies that show that woo and sham acupuncture are about equal to directed relaxation or massage or any other thing that involves someone chilling out while someone else pays attention to them.
So, the bottom line is that the method of acupuncture is a sham, but that it may result in decreased pain in some general way.
It would be interesting to see studies that compare all different kinds of guided relaxation to see if we can narrow down what has the best effect on what sympoms, and see if we can work out the common mechanism.