The premise of your article is on very shaky ground. Aubrey de Grey has been arguing the same thing for decades, with the only small problem being that...biology is super-complicated.

Senolytics seem highly promising. But we have to temper our enthusiasm by recognizing that (1) humans aren't mice and we're already outliers for our size in the long-life direction while mice are short-lived outliers for their size (arguing that mice have more headroom to improve); (2) senescent cells aren't well understood, and in particular if it was always advantageous for them to just die they would, presumably, just die--so we should anticipate some sort of substantial side-effects in certain cases; and (3) equally effective interventions in mice (e.g. metformin, which under the correct conditions produces at least as long a lifespan extension in mice as do senolytics) have not panned out to be anywhere as useful in humans (metformin doesn't clearly cause harm but it's hard to be sure it even helps at all, whereas in mice it's blindingly obvious).

So, mostly, when we hear ideas like "live to two hundred years", we should go, "Yeaaaahhhh, right, I'll believe it when (if) I see it."

Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve human health in old age (but fricking exercise already! that does work in humans, and exercise extends human life by more on average than if cancer just suddenly vanished!). Doesn't mean we shouldn't write science fiction about it. But it's very very far from a "this is going to happen" kind of thing.