I'd agree that the comment comes off as redundant and unscholarly, but there's nothing wrong with it from a grammar standpoint. "It" is the understood subject of the first clause...although there should really be a comma before "doesn't."
Just what is it that is supposed to make us think?
It should be blindingly obvious to anyone that it refers to the preceding summary. Reading between the lines, claims of falsified reports are supposed to make us think about how much mass recalls are due to hysteria vs. actual issues.
There are other problems with the summary, though. I did a double-take on
Lately, a lot of behind the scene conversations have been suggesting that perhaps the Note 7 battery explosion fiasco has been blown out of the proportion. There's no evidence of any of that, so we won't discuss it any further,
when I hit
but amid all of this, Samsung has confirmed that at least 26 explosion reports that circulated everywhere were hoaxes.
So there's no evidence of it being blown out of proportion...except for this evidence that we're showing you right now. And we "aren't discussing it" here, somehow?!
Normally I would never say this, but in this case the summary would be better off as just an ungarnished blockquote. So I suppose you're right.
And finally, there's the part where "we couldn't easily and immediately obtain proof it happened" somehow translates to "they were lying and it didn't happen." Wow.