Except not at all

All those folks dying of age in their 50s and 60s just needed to suck it up and do the blood-letting again.

People literally starved to death because they didn't have easy access to food

This occurs now yet, but less often

I am being somewhat facetious, I'd hope that can be seen.

Granted, here you can't take anything for granted.

Yep

Well we have people dying at 50 and 60 today so?

My whole point is its not modern medicine that allows you to live longer

Difference is, far fewer today than in the 1700s.

If you disagree with that, than I am sorry, but you are naive.

So a person in the 1700s who had acces to food and shelter

Died at 50

?

Yes.

While the same person today lives longer because of modern medicine

Or in his early 60s.

Okay can you tell me which medicine is saving us this hard

?

And what exactly killed them so early

In a lot of cases, small pox, 'big' pox (syphilis), and various other diseases like such. Even into the Early 1900s Smallpox, the Spanish Flu and similar were huge killers.

As for what was a huge solution...I could tell you, but you may very well not like the answer.

So I'll refrain from aggravating you.

Once again

I said had acces to food and shelter

Both of those diseases occured during times of starvation

And once again, I have said 'yes.'

And industrialization

And no, you're thinking more of Cholera there.

Where people lived in dumps

Which was also a major killer

but was not because of Miasma

No im talking about those two diseases

Syphilis was actually far more prolific among royalty.

For a very specific and not-too-pleasant reason.

And btw modern medicine didnt eliminate them

They vanished on theit own

Their

It did, but I'm not interested in arguing that with you.

How

You won't be convinced either way on that matter, so it is a moot point.