Yes, (assuming the tea is something like European ivy extract) more or
less all of the vast number of asthma docs and asthma researchers would
agree with you. Their basic argument is that asthma is an idiopathic
lung tissue disease, i. e. not caused or modulated by external factors
like breathing.   If as is good scientific thinking you assume that
asthma is not idiopathic, then things make more sense, although there
is no neat scientific proof or discovery.

Leaving out the idiopathic lung disease stuff, treatment with inhalers
(airway dilating substances or steroids) would be chiefly considered in
the  context of the existing reflex system of airway control and apart
from toxic effects in the body generally, rebound would be a cause of
concern. It would be questionable to push or zap some elements of a
complex control system into an apparently better condition without
understanding the control input factors. Just think of  messing around
with a computer program without studying its source code.

Things speaking against the idiopathic lung disease theory or (to use
that sinister word) "agenda" are:
a)    The fact that experimentally sled dogs get asthma with heavy and
presumably unnatural exercise. This is most probably due to
dysfunctional breathing in freezing air, not unmasking latent asthma.
If 70% plus of top cross country skiers have an asthma diagnosis, then
can this really be discovering latent asthma, even if the diagnoses are
bona fide, which seems unlikely?  Why should asthma with long episodes
of unnatural breathlessness and possibly attacks not damage lung
tissue?
b)    Reflux disease (GERD) is now implicated as a cause of asthma, so
that in this case - as well - the asthma is not idiopathic.

Since inhalers cause reflux, refraining from their use might be a step
forward, but a good understanding with a medical doctor would be
necessary.
On skiing asthma: see ,,The authors believe that their observations
[on sled dogs] provide additional support for the contention that
repeated, deep, rapid breathing with cold air can injure peripheral
airways. Consequently, the airway disease identified in this population
of racing sled dogs makes them potentially a very useful model for "ski
asthma."
(http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/G/20021018.html)  IMHO
it is not ,,very useful" to accept as gospel everything the
"asthma professionals" say either
I'd guess that synchronized breathing (like qigong) to get the
tendency to insidiously hyperventilate with a vicious circle effect or
the Dr. Hahn treatment often recommended on this group (see
http://www.asthmastory.com/).would be good options.  Regards, Richard
Friedel.

Yes, more or less all of the vast number of asthma docs and asthma
researchers would agree with you. Their basic argument is that asthma
is an idiopathic lung tissue disease, i. e. not caused or modulated by
external factors like breathing.   If as is good scientific thinking
you assume that asthma is not idiopathic, then things make more sense,
although there is no neat scientific proof or discovery.

Leaving out the idiopathic lung disease stuff, treatment with inhalers
(airway dilating substances or steroids) would be chiefly considered in
the  context of the existing reflex system of airway control and apart
from toxic effects in the body generally, rebound would be a cause of
concern. It would be questionable to push or zap some elements of a
complex control system into an apparently better condition without
understanding the control input factors. Just think of  messing around
with a computer program without studying its source code.

Things speaking against the idiopathic lung disease theory or (to use
that sinister word) "agenda" are:
a)    The fact that experimentally sled dogs get asthma with heavy and
presumably unnatural exercise. This is most probably due to
dysfunctional breathing in freezing air, not unmasking latent asthma.
If 70% plus of top cross country skiers have an asthma diagnosis, then
can this really be discovering latent asthma, even if the diagnoses are
bona fide, which seems unlikely?  Why should asthma with long episodes
of unnatural breathlessness and possibly attacks not damage lung
tissue?
b)    Reflux disease (GERD) is now implicated as a cause of asthma, so
that in this case - as well - the asthma is not idiopathic.

Since inhalers cause reflux, refraining from their use might be a step
forward, but a good understanding with a medical doctor would be
necessary.
On skiing asthma: see ,,The authors believe that their observations
[on sled dogs] provide additional support for the contention that
repeated, deep, rapid breathing with cold air can injure peripheral
airways. Consequently, the airway disease identified in this population
of racing sled dogs makes them potentially a very useful model for "ski
asthma."
(http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2002/G/20021018.html)  IMHO
it is not ,,very useful" to accept as gospel everything the
"asthma professionals" say either
I'd guess that synchronized breathing (like qigong) to get the
tendency to insidiously hyperventilate with a vicious circle effect or
the Dr. Hahn treatment often recommended on this group (see
http://www.asthmastory.com/).would be good options.  Regards, Richard
Friedel.