is found for the chiropractic subluxation being associated with any disease process or of creating suboptimal health conditions requiring intervention. regardless of popular appeal, this leaves the subluxation construct in the realm of unsupported speculation. this lack of supportive evidence suggests the subluxation construct has no valid clinical applicability. in 2005, four leading chiropractic researchers leveled strong critiques of chiropractic dogma: lastly, the acc claims that chiropractors use the 'best available rational and empirical evidence' to detect and correct subluxations. this strikes us as pseudoscience, since the acc does not offer any evidence for the assertions they make, and since the sum of all the evidence that we are aware of does not permit a conclusion about the clinical meaningfulness of subluxation. to the best of our knowledge, the available literature does not point to any preferred method of subluxation detection and correction, nor to any clinically practical method of quantifying compromised "neural integrity," nor to any health benefit likely to result from subluxation correction. in 2015, internationally accredited chiropractic colleges from bournemouth university, university of south wales, university of southern denmark, university of zürich, institut franco-européen de chiropraxie, and university of johannesburg made an open statement which included: "the teaching of the vertebral subluxation complex as a vitalistic construct that claims that it is the cause of disease is unsupported by evidence. its inclusion in a modern chiropractic curriculum in anything other than an historic context is therefore inappropriate and unnecessary."