Your argument seems to fall on the "appeal to nature":https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
It's not because it's natural (or the new fancy hipster term "organic") that it does good for you. As Paracelsus said: " All substances are poisons; there is none which is not a poison. The right dose differentiates a poison…" or something like that.
I think you've read Dave Asprey bullsoykaf, right? Most of what he says about coffee is a exaggerated to sell more of his "organic, mold free, super blast bulletproof coffee".
>has anyone had that wakey-wakey coffe effect from a tea?
I do, using yerba mate with green tea. If you do a powder from both and agitate in a recipient with 100C boiling water it extracts a good quantity of caffeine...
>I love making tea cocktails mixing some of them
I do to, I like it. I'm experimenting with Salvia now (noticed any effect at all), but I've have experiences with ginkgo biloba, ginseng and others. So far, aside from caffeine containing plants, no effect noticed. I've tried pills of kava and rhodiola rosea, nothing too.
>Got any sources for that?
Not the same guy but, as I said, you're falling on appeal to nature fallacy. What science do with plants some animistic religions say is bad. Basically because most of these think that all plants have an spirit ("anima mundi", or qi, kundalini, ether, etc) and when you consume these plants you're actually consuming it's spirit. It's fine if you apply it in a metaphorical way, but that's not exactly what science shows.
What science do is:
- Get a plant
- See what is the major components of it
- Remove the normal compounds (chlorophyll and some alkaloids) that have now show any particular effect (through double blind, placebo controlled, randomized clinical tests)
- Test it in animals. If show effects, go to the lab and check the components again
- Start removing those other substances until find the one that's actually doing the desired effect
- Test it again, but now with the pure substance in a clinical way (the state of art today is a peer review of double blink, placebo controlled and randomized)
- If some result is found, other academics will do research too. Other universities start to do peer review on papers.
- If the statistic is good, someone will do an meta-analysis of all these studies and, through statistics (see p-number), they can check if it works or not
Of course, you could argue that there's a kind of reductionism here. For example, different substances, when interacting may lead to different results. Science is aware of it. Most of them already know the drug metabolism (CYP450 and other enzymes, P-glycoprotein, etc) and the pharmacokinesis.
>yerba mate [...] can cause throat cancer
True. I've read that too. But to it actually cause cancer you'll have to drink it a lot. Also, most of the studies, IIRC, did with hot water, that may be the actual cause of cancer. If you think about it, a lot of people on south america drink it everyday and, if this cancer hypothesis is true, you should see a higher statistics in cancer on those places... and there's no statistics on this. Actually, there's more cancer , from what I remember, in big cities than on, say, the rural places of Paraguay or the south of Brazil.