They can eradicate invaders, such as bacteria, that do damage to the body through the use of antibiotics, but they can't cure the permanent damage that was done by those invaders prior to antibiotic treatment. They can trick the body into building up it's own defense systems through the use of vaccines which can even be helpful after the body has started to be attacked by a virus. My guess is that most doctors prefer the third definition that does not imply any permanent state of health. I define a cure as a method of treatment that provides such a state of health that any change in that state would make that organism worse. Medications are substances that create change in the functioning of organisms.
Medications create change in the states of health or the mechanisms of various systems in the body.
Take this logic one step further and it is safe to say that stopping the use of a medication also creates some change in the functioning of the organism or the systems of that organism. So if stopping a medication creates a change, and a cure is a state of health where any change would make the organism worse, then a medication-induced cure would possibly be a treatment where the person gets better by stopping the medication. With the hundreds of millions of dollars that are required to legally test new drug treatments, no drug company could ever make money from a treatment that makes people better when they withdraw from using the medication. With our current system, no drug company could ever make money from a cure. They make their fortunes by developing maintenance medications that need to be taken continuously.