I don't believe in a simple, much-less single cure. As in really a cure. It is as much a gift (for me, at least) and even partly/consequently a way of life I wouldn't want to miss completely, so it cannot really be cured. Or I can't be.

If it's genetic, and it really is at least for some, to some (definitely not full) extent—if you include everything as part of an illness/disease, with some people having a latent/dormant disease—a real cure is also not likely or desirable.

If it is not, genetics only predisposing to develop a mental disorder, which doesn't really make much of a difference in the sciency way, there are still some biochemical changes which are relevant.

Much of that correlates with social and spiritual matters. Whether you see these (in a reduced fashion) rather as one, monistic (materialistic or mystic), or not, doesn't really matter much for the problems we face.

Though I do believe philosophy can help anyone, but especially us, to pre-rationalise as it were to keep a rational mind longer during mania. You might then land safely and largely unscathed without the use of meds.

But, if I may so (though I don't think it is much of anything in itself), I have a pretty rational mind, yet I do need meds to not lose my grasp of it. Arguably, even that is not a problem, but for me it really is. It's just what I do that demands a rather firm grasp. Mileage may vary.

Susceptibility to fear because of losing touch might vary. I don't have much fear, but also not much allowance. It is a choice and highly social and spiritual. I need philosophy and science to enrich my soul. For some, music will do or some other artistry. I chose science.

You can't (or you are just being illogical, fair enough) say science has a wrong viewpoint. Science, per se, is looking at all viewpoints.

Work in academia and other research work (much of it sponsored if it readily applies to the actual lives of people), however, is corrupt through and through. But also there you find (more and more) internal opposition.

Theories based on findings can still be very valid and helpful. The more sponsorship from big companies, again, can make theorising less viable, it not being readily useful, sometimes considered dangerous. It's not like it should make any sense to laypersons, surely! Sadly, that's how it works. Much effort goes into obfuscation.

Hopefully I (and of course others) do no such thing. I at least try to make the more sciency stuff I write as clear and simple (the essentials, but also giving caveats) as possible.