The authors of this rejoinder write that they understand that there are mixed views on the work they do, the products they publish, and the roles they play in the professions they serve. They also believe that in any healthy professional context, debate and disagreement enhance their work. The authors state that most of the time, their work is focused on alerting professionals to the work they have completed, allowing the evidence stand on its merits, and respond to queries when asked. Occasionally, however, authors who have joined the staff from professional practice enter the discussion directly when they feel compelled to correct error and misinformation that can lead to false conclusions about the science they have undertaken. This is the case with the article titled "Four Dyslexia Screening Myths That Cause More Harm Than Good in Preventing Reading Failure and What You Can Do Instead" published in the May 2017 issue of "Communiqué" (VanDerHeyden & Burns, 2017). In this rejoinder, Breaux, Scheller, and Eichstadt agree with many of the statements in the VanDerHeyden & Burns article, however here they wish to clarify some of the key propositions they find incomplete, misconstrued, or not supported by the evidence.