His theory is incorrect. The body burns alcohol at a constant rate, so a blood test results are simply adjusted for the amount of time that passes between the incident and the test. And, as far as I know, the time adjusted result is accepted as valid by the law & the courts.
refusal of the breathalyzer losing you your license is an administrative matter, dependent on the specific wording of the law in your state.
What refusal of the breathalyzer does do, is prevent false positives. Sometimes, combinations of certain foods, mouthwash, and a person's unique body chemistry will show a "positive" on a breathalyzer, WITHOUT the person drinking alcoholic beverages.
Years ago a lady I worked with had such a unique body chemistry that she would test positive for drinking (by breathalyzer) when she had not been drinking. The job required a security clearance, and she wound up getting suspended (for some time) while the union and security "duked it out" about whether or not she was guilty of "drinking on the job". It took a while, but verified medical testing (which the company had to pay for) did eventually prove her innocent, and she was reinstated, and compensated.
This condition was something she had been completely unaware of, until it became a problem. IF you are one of these rare people, (and you know it) I'd recommend getting notarized statements from doctor(s) stating you are, and keeping them with you at all times. Might not get you out of a drunk driving ticket, or stop a cop who decides you are impaired from taking you in, or taking your gun, but it can't hurt, and WILL be important in court, later. IF you haven't been drinking. If you have, well, then, forget it.
What is most important is the language of the law. It's not a crime to drive if you've been drinking, its a crime to drive impaired, and while the setpoint in law is the standard for impairment, you can be impaired below that limit, people are different. That CAN matter. If you hit or exceed the legal limit, and are not actually "impaired" (and there are people like that, as well) it doesn't matter to the law. Over the limit is legally impaired, no matter what your physical reality is. And, of course, if you are under the influence of anything, your physical reality might not be what you THINK it is.
You can make the argument all you wish, but since the world runs on coffee, or tea, I doubt you will get much traction with that particular argument. OF course, anything is possible, I suppose. Research the "Twinkie Defense".
If you're bouncing off the walls and speaking rapid gibberish, it doesn't really matter if it was coffee, sugar, crystal meth, jack Daniels, or the voices in your head, that put you there, you WILL be deemed "impaired". Might matter later in court, might not, but it absolutely won't change officer's response when they decide you are impaired.
Of course a jury may decide otherwise...