I don't read "scale factor of 100x" as "cost factor of 100x", but I'm not going to get into any arguments here.
In terms of number of cameras produced and sold, I think I'm well in the ballpark.
I would be extremely surprised if Canon sold one 1-series body for every 100 consumer bodies. I suspect the ratio is much lower (1:300 at least, likely lower still). There's a reason Canon produces xxxD bodies and kit lenses in Taiwan instead of (or in some cases, in addition to) Japan.
Nice hyperbole, but that can't be true. The most expensive 1-series body sells for ~10x an xxxD body, there's not a 100x difference in production costs.
Real numbers are pretty hard to come by, but I would wager 2-3x cost on the sensor (based off cost differences in machine vision cameras, which have a more even margin in general and no feature differences between models besides sensor size). The other bells and whistles it is hard to say.
Ultimately, though, production costs are essentially irrelevant (this was discussed recently, not sure if that was in this thread or elsewhere on CR). Sales pricing is determined by amortization of R&D costs, market size, and related factors. Canon expects to sell fewer 1-series bodies, they have to charge more for them.
I work in the pharmaceutical industry - a small pharma company recently got approval for a drug that is a very effective treatment for cystic fibrosis, for the 5% of the patient population with a particular form of the disease. The whole CF population is small, and 5% of that means a very small market for this drug. Chemically, the molecule is pretty simple, and easy to synthesize. The per-pill production costs are not significantly different from Tylenol or an over-the-counter antihistamine. A year's worth of Tylenol would cost you about $30. A year's worth of ivacaftor will cost you $294,000.