One other point to bear in mind; in the video you linked to, the final gain in power was 40.6KW (that's another small car worth!!). In your opinion, what do you think they did to the turbo (map side) in order to create such a massive gain in power?
Your logic, as you mentioned:
Turbo working hard - 118.9KW
Turbo working less hard - 159.5KW
That's 34.15% gain in power.
I do realise redesigning a map isn't quite as simple as "turning something up or down", but this highlights a serious error in your thinking.
What other major change on the map could have allowed such an insane power gain, targeting which components, or adjusting which parameters?
Or, do you think they lowered the parameters for the turbo in order to gain more power?
The requirement of back pressure is a myth, fact. The important things, as mentioned above, is exhaust Scavenging and Velocity.
I think you will find, the error you made whilst assuming that the turbo can be directly damaged by a lack of back pressure, is that you failed to consider that over boost generally causes damage to many other components. Not the turbo. It is designed to be under stress, because that's what it is for, it's a compressor. The turbine, or torsional stress on the shaft, bearings... isn't the concern, it's pipework and intercooler etc, things like that will blow with over boost (or more severe things). That being said, as the Free Man mentioned above, re-map or no re-map, the waste gate/turbo vanes are governed by many parameters, as soon as the ECU decides there's too much pressure, it will let it go or adjust the vanes (very quick to respond).
If the turbo was under the level of stress you mention, enough to damage it, then something else would pop first, make no mistake.
(all figures above are taken from memory, please excuse errors after the decimal point. Although it should be accurate to one unit at least, close enough for argument)