Biostatistician with undergraduate degree in biochemistry here. The mere fact that words like "verify" and "confirm" are being used ought not to set off BS alarms in this context -- biologists talk like this all the time*. I can also tell you that the proposed theory (that mitochondria are targeted for recycling based on signals present in their membranes) is pretty plausible a priori -- in fact, more plausible than the theory that mitochondria are recycled without biological discrimination. (Notice that the theory is a massive disjunction, since it doesn't specify the signaling molecules.) A claim like this ought to be evaluated on its merits, not on the word choice of its proponents. To me, the BS seems like it might actually be in calling this theory "heretical" or "unorthodox" -- this seems like a post facto play for outsider status. Were mainstream biologists definitively against the theory for substantive reasons, or was the mainstream position merely "there's no evidence justifying that claim"? * Biologists are lousy at statistical thinking when it's required, i.e., when data are noisy. They are very sharp about what causal inferences are warranted by data with high signal-to-noise -- that's what they're trained to do.