On Defense of Kimkins

People continue to defend Kimkins is safe, and not the nutritionally bankrupt stavation plan it is.

I'm puzzled at how they can think that. These are Heidi Diaz/Kimmer's words:

It’s best not exceed the 1000 cals, 20 carbs, 20-30 fat grams, and keep the Protein at 60-90 grams per day. These are the limits for newbies, but you will find that as you stick with the plan you will see lower numbers in all the above categories.

Here is the math, using her MAXIMUM recommendations.
80 calories (20g carbs x 4 calories per gram)
+ 270 calories (30g fat x 9 calories per gram)
+ 360 calories (90g protein x 4 calories per gram)
710 calories

That's the MAXIMUM. Saying it's best not to exceed 1000 calories is a smokescreen. Kimmer also says there is no need at all to eat so long as there is any fat remaining on your body. You don't see that sage advice before you plunk down your nonrefundable $79.95. Once you've spent your money, if you question that advice you are banned.

If you're eating a reasonable amount of calories and getting good nutrition, you aren't even doing Kimkins, so why would you defend it?

Does the fact that you haven't been killed by advice you didn't take mean that the advice is safe?