I don't want you to defer to my expertise too much. I could be mistaken. But maybe I can convey at least a flavor of why it's not as good as it sounds.

There is nothing about lasers that target cancer specifically, save if you aim at cancer.

Dr. Green's method says: okay, put something into the cells that absorbs a lot of energy from lasers. Then we don't have to aim cell-by-cell, just in the right general area: the cancer cells die, the normal cells don't.

The problem is, if you can reliably get something into cells, there are all sorts of things that you could put into them that would just kill them, without needing any laser at all.

Finding the sweet spot where you can get the energy-pickup agent (gold nanorods) into cancer cells to be effective, without getting so many into non-cancer cells that a patient dies from that instead, and where pointing the laser is a key part of targeting, is tricky.

There is a lot of absurdity in the world, but not so much that people leave oodles of obvious money on the table just 'cause racism and sexism. (It does still bias how willing people are to gamble on something non-obvious or tricky, but that's a small factor when compared to what the expected payoff is. Well, and the usual shortsightedness of markets.)