I can't vouch for all the details in the most technical parts of the paper, but I have read Khare's paper carefully and the overall strategy of the proof is correct. If there were a mistake, I would be surprised if it had not been found already -- this paper is not nearly as complicated as some of the ones to which you refer that didn't pan out.
I can't vouch for all the details in the most technical parts of the paper, but I have read Khare's paper carefully and the overall strategy of the proof is correct. If there were a mistake, I would be surprised if it had not been found already -- this paper is not nearly as complicated as some of the ones to which you refer that didn't pan out.