Is Efficient Market Hypothesis Valid?

Do markets actually self-correct themselves? Agreed that when the prices don't reflect the best available public and private information , those having the best available information take advantage(basically transacts or trades) of it until that advantage is gone (which is when the same information is available to everyone - efficient market). Should we invest in an efficient market at all? Or better try to get hold of that golden asymmetry? Which is why we depend on financial intermediaries , those brokers , bankers and fund managers, because they have better 'insights'. Don't the technical and fundamental analysis give that extra edge of information?

So, doesn't the information asymmetry drive the financial markets? One argument can be that it is the individual's expectation which drive the financial market - X expects the prices to rise and hence a buy while Y expects the prices to fall and hence sell to X. But don't these contrasting expectations get built by the same asymmetry of information?

Those brokers , bankers and fund managers do have better insights and we are in a way right to delegate our investment decisions to these experts. But this delegation somehow creates a sort of agency problem. They become our agents and obviously have better information than us finally leading the moral dilemma. So the bottom line is - it is the information asymmetry which drives the financial markets and time to time put these same markets into trouble?

Don't the point made by efficient market hypothesis (EMH) that price of any traded asset reflects all known information about the asset , puts us in an illusion that "all is well"? And that regulators are indeed wrong to close their eyes and not interfere in the markets? EMH is in a way contributing to the development of a financial crisis by holding the regulators from raising the red flag.