You know this because? Making up a claim out of thin air is not a factual statement. You are claiming out of all the chemical compounds that can possibly exist in the world, there doesn't exist one which is likely to cause a delayed heart attack which is currently undetectable. What do you think researchers at bioweapons lab do all day?I pointed out, correctly, that there exists no evidence that a compound like that describes actually exists.
This line of reasoning is also fallacious which I already explained in the heart attack gun example as a similar technology that certainly exist but isn't reported on.I then provided further reasoning for why this is correct by saying that such a compound, if it existed, would almost certainly be used prolifically, and therefore we would observe a much higher than normal rate of heart attacks among political elites. But we don't, so it very likely doesn't exist.
Also you softened your claim to very likely doesn't exist instead of doesn't exist. I'm not going to debate the likelihood of the existence of such a weapon, but let's not try to make definitive claims next time.