Actually, when in the lifecycle of developing a treatment does anyone have a real idea of what cost will be? Can anyone know this yet?

In terms of where _prices_ are set, that negotiation is a function of efficacy relative to other things in the market right? If it ends up treating cancers that each already have a reasonably effective treatment, maybe the pricing isn't that high -- but if it is effective in cases where currently there are no options, the price should be high?

But for something that potentially works against a range of cancers, should we expect to see a sequence of more specific trials (i.e. one phase 1 for basic safety, a bunch of phase 2s for efficacy on specific cancer types, a sequence of phase 3s in descending order of estimated market value? And in 10 years, Alice and Bob with different cancers will pay radically different amounts for almost exactly the same treatment but with small variations in some aspect of the formulation so they can be treated as distinct products?

I have no idea whether this is real, nor do I know how the concentration compares with that used in the study, but https://www.nanominerals.co.uk/products/the-health-factory-n... advertises it as a supplement (not as a medicine) for $40/ half liter.

(The ad also claims that the water their iron is suspended in is "energized", which makes the rest of the ad seem...questionable.)

As far as nanomaterial assembly goes MOF syntheis is pretty scalable

Does the cost matter? Many countries subsidize healthcare, so there's either no charge or a token payment which doesn't even pretend to cover the cost of treatment.

Other countries use insurance, so once again the end cost is essentially irrelevant.