On the economic side, the idea of hiding a cure because they make more out of selling the treatment - just doesn't make sense economically
Because if every other company is covering up a cure - it means the one company that releases the actual cure gets a decades long patent and immediately takes all the money away from all their competitors
I take your point here, but there is a huge difference between "hiding a cure" and being happy having a "decades long patent" on something that alleviates symptoms (which may have arisen from an attempt to find a cure).
I'm not sure you do
entirely get the point
If a company such as AstraZeneca researches a cure for something and ends up with a good treatment for it - that might have taken about $1bn to get to market.
If they have a 20 year patent that means they must make at least $50 million a year to get their R&D money back
If a different company, such as Pfizer were researching the same cure and get beaten to the treatment by AZ - they'll keep on researching the cure.
If they get a cure 5 years after AZ got their treatment it means Pfizer will patent their cure for 20 years.
And AstraZeneca has 15 years left on a patent which is basically worthless - because who is going to pay for the treatment when they can just pay for the cure
In this model the profit maximisation is for AZ to patent the treatment - and still carry on researching the cure.
That's obviously hugely simplified - but it's basically the reason why research will never get stifled.
If it works (for a middle class western customer) - it will make a profit
And if your pharma company doesn't make that profit - one of your competitors will.
