@Oddthinking I posted the following comment; it's unreferenced, I hope it's not the type of pseudo-answer which you didn't want.

@ChrisW: It seems to me that the OP is confused by the two meanings of "cured", as you suggest.

If that is the case, there would appear to be two strategies: answer the question as it is, or comment to ask the OP to correct/delete the question.

The first approach would be to answer with some dictionary definitions of "cure", argue it is vague and misleading (is a plaster cast a "cure" for broken bones?) and show while there is no 100% effective treatment [citation-needed], basic hospital care improves the chances of living long enough for the body to fight off the virus [citation-needed], which is arguably a cure plus untreated people also often survive.

Your comment seems to be following the latter approach. I see some answers are following a third approach and arguing there IS a cure. If correct, that seems reasonable too.

I was responding with a warning to the (upvoted) comments that make claims/repeat rumours about the disease and treatment itself, without references.

Thanks. a) I didn't want to delete the question: it's a reasonable doubt, and an on-topic question. Because he asked about treatments not about cures, so the answer was straightforward (from Wikipedia). b) I didn't want to bring out a dictionary to define 'cure' -- that would be on-topic only if I was trying to deny or justify the newspaper's use of the word "cure". c) I thought I could post a comment, to try to illuminate the question and its author.

I didn't want to reference my claim about the meaning of "cure". I hoped that was a valid comment, not a "pseudo-answer" of the type which you'd just asked people not to post.

@ChrisW All agreed. Cool.