It seems that this does override the prohibition of forbidden foods, but not really for the reason given by the author of Dor Revi’i. Rather, because in a case of hunger, Jewish law does not require you to eat something that is not defined as natural food. That is why, when the Torah wants to speak about absolute starvation, it talks about a woman eating her afterbirth as it comes out from between her legs, and not about eating donkeys. Because the donkeys had already run out; they are the preferred option. Similarly, the halakhic decisors ruled that a dangerously ill person may drink on Yom Kippur, and we do not require him to receive fluids intravenously, even though such an infusion certainly does not count for canceling the affliction and certainly is not a Torah prohibition. Rather, when hunger and thirst lead to a life-threatening situation, a person is allowed to proceed in the natural way and eat natural food, even though that option involves a more severe prohibition, and we do not require implementing an unnatural solution.

I disagree. Why would one not be required to eat something that isn’t food? As long as it provides nourishment, it is food, and there is no reason not to eat it. Of course, if a person is incapable of eating it, then it is not a solution, and in that case he must violate the prohibition—but not because that is preferable; rather because for him it is the only option.
The same applies to an infusion. There too I disagree. If a person can receive an infusion and not violate a severe prohibition, there is no reason to permit him to drink or eat.

https://mikyab.net/responsa/the-author-of-dor-revii/