Any good Rebuttal for @meangenebio's math on X

Context: https://x.com/meangenebio/status/2103820365931966809

I saw this math from X resurrecting the age old question of "math doesn't make sense since the Trial was not stopped at IA". Does anyone have a succinct, good mathematical explanation to counter his math?

Please don't personally attack him or me as shorts, that's not helpful to anybody. Asking as I am sure there are OGs with a way better explanation than what I have or can put it in a much simpler math than I could. Thanks

Full Text from X:

Let’s say BAT deaths are now at 58 out of 78 (58 of the 63 BAT have died)

Only 18 people have died since the interim, and if they were ALL BAT (extremely unlikely)

That means it would have been 40 BAT at interim and 20 GPS

That is HR 0.50, z=-2.582, p=0.0098, that exceeds OBF efficacy boundary and stops for efficacy

If the interim was 25 GPS / 35 BAT that’s HR 0.72 and is a BAT median of 9-10 months, running that forward we would see 45-53 BAT deaths by now… which implies GPS at 25-33 deaths now

From 25/35 interim, at least 13 of 18 deaths since interim need to be BAT to hit significance… the problem for GPS is that to have 25 at interim means another 8-14 GPS deaths post interim are expected, unless the tail somehow completely collapsed right after the interim

But a tail collapse is not consistent with the enrollment of the trial… early enrollment patients from 2021/2022 would have been reaching the tail at the time of the interim Dec 2024

This is why I keep saying the math does not favor GPS and there is an increasingly narrowing path for it to reach HR significance

Many of the bull counter arguments I am seeing fail to account for the interconnected nature of the 2 arms due to the HR endpoint and are trying to view the arms as totally independent, and also fail to fit their proposed scenarios to the reported trial data