Animus saidBut, collectively, they can make even more money on treatment, even while competing. Making a cure would only sever a source of revenue flow which would be bad for the competitors and the company who generated a cure.
There's simply no significant financial incentive to create a cure over a treatment. If there was, we'd see it already, like with flu "vaccines" that you have to take yearly in order to maintain conditional immunity.
I don't think companies care much what they can make collectively. They each want to make the largest profit possible at the expensive of each other. The first company to create a cure, assuming it's a company at all and not a private institution, is going to get extremely rich while taking all the profits that the other companies would be making.
We haven't seen a cure because of the difficulties in targeting viruses with drugs. The reason you have to get a flu vaccines each year is because the viruses keep mutating and different strains become more prevalent from one year to the next. There has been recent progress in creating a vaccine that targets any strain of the flu virus, but it's probably years away from being put into production.
Here's a link to a Wikipedia article on antiviral drugs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiviral_drug
Take it with a grain of salt, of course, but it has some interesting information on the limitations of antivirals and vaccines. There's even a sentence about a new method of treating viruses called DRACO, which in theory
could treat all viruses. That means no more colds, flu, HIV, hepatitis, etc. EVER. It probably won't pan out. These things rarely do. But every step we take, we learn more about how to treat diseases.
It's easy for people to make paranoid accusations of conspiracies because they don't require any real proof to back up their claims. They only have to make a few suggestive statements, and people who want to believe there is something sinister going on will hop right on board.