I would like to suggest sticking to the principle of logical objective reasoning in the argument. That would not only build up the credibility but also helps clarify the problem and approach to the vicinity of the truth.

Some reported observations suggests Zusanli (along the same line like hegu, etc.) is one of the few points in acupuncture which has observable effects (especially pain control: proposed mechanisms involving neuropeptides, anti-nociceptive effects, etc.) in the clinic though not really exactly as described by the Classics in the traditional Chinese medicine. I can not back up with my statement at the moment with any concrete evidence with convincing RCT studies. They may not exist I assume. However, dismissing the effect without verification is at the same time just as reckless and naive.

The existing distrust is absolutely understandable. Historically, the horrible mix of the useful and useless data with improper defective design or academic incompetence or pure academic misconducts and scandals in a large extent make a large portion of the reports from China unreliable and dubious.