In other words, John Citizen statistically won't live to age 130. Someone who is better off health wise and is less of a risk taker than the average American - I bet given a lifetime of modern day medicine or better, you've got a great shot at 130.
If those people had lived with today's medical technology and knowledge available to them for their whole lives, that list of people living to 110 would be much longer and undoubtedly you'd see an increase in the number of people giving to 120 and probably to 130.
That doesn't seem like a particularly interesting question. It wouldn't change the conclusion that humans can't naturally live past 120. And that conclusion itself becomes unimportant if we can reliably work around it.
We don't know that. Nobody has lived an entire life with modern medicine. So many things such as organ transplants, vaccines, antibiotics, discouragement of smoking, awareness of carcinogens, etc, have been developed since many of the people aged 100 or above were born, or in many cases, were middle aged.
> The question then becomes, if you manipulate your DNA, are you human, or a human subspecies?
That's mostly irrelevant - there is plenty of longevity-related DNA variance within Homo sapiens as it is.