1. No, we can't and we need not assume that the study was sponsored by those companies. This would be divulged at the end of the paper, and no conflicts of interest were reported. Johns Hopkins University doesn't work like that; in fact, funding to research universities, to their programs including their medical programs, works quite differently. I know because my work has involved such things. Not to mention that supplement companies don't have the kind of money to fund such studies. They are not multi-billion dollar companies like pharma. Moreover, even if the study was supported by the companies, which it was not, how would that be relevant? Are you insinuating that this corrupted the data, that the authors doctored the results? That's one serious accusation, which would then have to be proven, again not assumed.

2. The length of time of the studies and hence use of the supplements are not arbitrarily set. They are not testing long term, random usage of said supplements, but a one-month course of these herbal antibiotics, which is the norm for herbal antibiotic use in SIBO. This is the standard in pretty much all studies. Just like a pharmaceutical course of antibiotics tends to be 14 days for SIBO. There are standards depending on the condition and so it's not really a criticism of the study that they didn't go against protocol and standards.

So I don't know how it's relevant to the study that they may or may not be safe long term. They are effective and safe for the purpose of the study and condition under study. I also don't see how you draw the following inference: "we dont know these products are really safe apart from hear say knowledge". The study is not "hear say", it's a leading study by a leading research university.

3. Regarding the second study, just because a study involves a smaller number of participants, it doesn't follow that it has no "credibility at all".

And as I said very clearly, there are many other studies, not just two. I've read dozens myself. You can look for them. I'm not going to bother posting them here, because you seem dead set against the potential that herbal antibiotics can be and are both safe and effective, even in the face of quality studies. I'm sorry to hear you had a bad experience with "herbal medicines", but personal experience is no reason to mis-characterize people's quality work and evidence based on much larger sample sizes and better controls than a single person's negative experience. The evidence speaks for itself, and as a researcher and a patient I value quality research.