I get what you're saying and am familiar with SENS but I think you're being overconfident(I don't even think the people @ SENS are that confident). That's their theory and strategy but it is by no means a forgone conclusion that they are right. I think what they are doing is important and exciting but I'm glad there are others investigating "programmed" aging theories too.
Here's a pretty decent breakdown of aging theories.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2995895/
OB's comment about stopping aging simply by turning genes off is not possible with current level of knowledge. And it is extremely unlikely to ever be sufficient to stop aging all together.
There is no question in gerontology that aging is the result of damage. Now there is a faction of researchers who believe that damage mitigation mechanisms are genetically programmed to gradually switch off with age. I wouldn't be surprised at all if this turns out to be true at some level. But we currently have little idea if/to what extent this is true.
The details of SENS theory might turn out to be wrong. I was simply presenting an overview of the types of damage that cause aging, and SENS model happen to include pretty much all of them.