DigestFlow Refund Policy and 60-Day Guarantee

The distributor’s own product sheet, which this desk works from, states the window as 60 days from purchase, and that is the figure this website prints on every page.

There is a documented conflict on the point, and it is set out here once rather than hinted at everywhere. The seller’s own page words the same window differently: within sixty days from the date your order was shipped. Two sources, two start dates, a few days apart.

This desk prints the pack’s version, because the pack is the document it holds and because purchase is the earlier of the two dates and therefore the tighter deadline. Counting from the earlier date is the reading that cannot leave you outside the window under either wording.

The practical instruction follows from that, and it is the whole of the advice here: count sixty days from the day you paid, and ring the order desk before day sixty rather than on it.

Terms as supplied to this desk and as published by the seller. The return authorisation you are given on the call governs your particular order.

The last row is the one worth dwelling on. A money-back guarantee is a commercial promise about a transaction and nothing else, and a supplement that offers one is not thereby making a claim about its effects. It is common practice in this category and it should be read as such.

A sixty-day window is only useful to somebody who can tell, at day fifty-five, whether anything changed. That is a record-keeping problem rather than a product problem, and it is the reason this desk keeps asking for one symptom written down daily from the week before you start.

Set two reminders when the parcel arrives. One at four weeks, to read the notes. One at seven weeks, which leaves a clear week to make the call if the answer is no.

And be realistic about what the window can tell you. Only the caffeine row on this panel acts quickly; the rest work through the colon over weeks, which is why the timeline page exists and why eight weeks is the decision point rather than two.

Four readings, of which the third is the only one that happens to be true here, and it is true by coincidence rather than by design.

The third row is worth expanding. The only human study on any row of this panel ran two weeks, the distributor’s own reported wait is 3–6 weeks, and 60 days covers both with room left. A thirty-day window would not, and a ninety-day one would be more than the evidence asks for.

So this is one of the rare cases where the commercial term and the pharmacological reality line up. That is worth saying once, plainly, and not turning into a claim about the formula.

This desk sells one product and writes about it alongside other retail desks handling other products, so a note on how this window compares is useful context rather than a sales point.

Most windows in this trade are counted from the date of purchase. A minority, including this one, are counted from dispatch. The difference is the processing time before a parcel leaves, which is typically a few days and is time the buyer gets to keep here rather than spend.

What this window does not do is stretch to cover a six-bottle pack. A hundred and eighty days of supply with a sixty-day window means two thirds of a large purchase sits outside it, which is the strongest practical argument for starting small.