Also, when you think about it, they put a lot of lives at risk by publishing, seemingly, false information in a critical time.

$20 (patent free) Hydroxychoroquine vs $100s/1000s for patented medicine

Why assume it's economic? All of the signs point to political interest in my opinion. Trump said we should check it out, it might help. Therefore, we must destroy it, because Orange Man Bad.

Just because a President, or any man, is bad, doesn't automatically mean that every word he says is wrong. And if he really is that bad, why is it necessary to fabricate studies out of thin air in order to discredit something he said, complete with people dying because they couldn't get a medication that might have helped. If he is actually bad, the actual facts should be plenty to demonstrate it.

This doesn't even seem like a "conspiracy theory" to me. If you want to get into conspiracy theories, you'd have to start asking what else is getting this treatment.

Trying to jump to a political conclusion is a waste of time. It would make more sense that the study was fake science specifically designed to be discovered, to make Trump look better. See? It is just pointless to hypothesise without strong independent information, which is lacking at present.

What's the economic interest of claiming the medication doesn't work?

The company that provided the data, Surgisphere, might have been trying to raise their profile by getting a big publication. They're a bit shady.

https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/06/02/su...

To prop up a competing medication.

Increased sales of a competing medication, like Remdesivir.

There a huge battle going on between hydroxychloroquine (the Republican therapy of choice when combined with a zinc supplement) and remdesivir (the antiviral drug by Gilead that's preferred by anti-Trump liberals).

To answer your question, there can be an economic interest in claiming a competitor treatment (which is generic and manufactured cheaply) doesn't work.