I hate when people laugh at good questions. It really fucking annoys me.

Depends how they laugh. You can laugh in a good natured way at what should be a logical step but weirdly isn’t because of a non-obvious component of a system. They are funny in a similar way to how a joke is- something about the sudden change in perspective but with an flaw in the logic. But you are right that you need to make it clear you aren’t laughing at them to avoid such confusion.

I see what you mean, but I probably would have laughed at that because it's a really clever solution, not out of scorn. I am guessing a doctor that has spent decade hearing about various blood pressure medications and treatment would have an instant of "That's funny, why can't we just empty them a bit?"

The only stupid question is the one that isn't asked. Laughing at people really puts a dent in that, sadly.

How heavy is 1KG of iron?

Asked because not asking is apparently stupid but the question isn't.

Not a fan of the Socratic method, I see. When I was a child my father would ask me and my siblings "Which is heavier, a pound of feathers or a pound of lead?"

It wasn't a stupid question, it was an enlightening question, and your "stupid" question would not have sparked further discussion if you'd not asked it.

Thanks for proving the quotation right.

cope harder

Why do you ask? Oh, for purposes of helpful demonstration. Seems like a question that is stupid by letter but not by spirit.

I do concede that there are dumb questions, of course. Although typically I like to say, there are no dumb questions but there are dumb times to ask questions.

Heavy enough to hurt you if it falls on your head, light enough to easily carry for a while.

Your answer isn't in weight but I asked how heavy it is, I expect a weight as answer.

Also I just doped a 1KG block of iron on my head from 1mm distance and it didn't hurt me. Then I cold rolled the block of iron into a 4x4m sheet of metal and I was unable to carry it around for more than a few seconds. Your answer is not only useless its also demonstrably wrong.

Maybe just maybe the question is stupid.

when doctors laugh at me (I ask a lot of questions like this) I typically show them the underlying scientific article that supports it, and ask them if they've read it.

They stop laughing after that.

High blood pressure is rarely due to excessive blood volume, but rather due to the constriction of small arteries.

The effect of blood donation on health is through the reduction of iron (which is a both necessary and toxic element), not blood volume.

Your blood volume is replenished in days, where as replenishing your iron stores takes longer.

The doctor laughed at that? Even if wrong that’s a pretty intuitive thing to think. It’s a very reasonable question - as would the inverse (adding more blood to raise pressure).

I doubt it was a "ha-ha you're a stupid idiot" laugh but more of the sort of laugh you'd do when a toddler does something that makes perfect common sense, but violates social norms (like discussing their bowel movements with strangers).

It does seem like a reasonable question, so I’m curious why you got that answer. Any domain experts here?

Not exactly my field, but IIRC blood pressure is not a passive result of how much blood is present, but rather is regulated by the body through a series of control networks. Removing blood does not reduce blood pressure (the body recognizes the dip and will adjust, plus more blood is made again quickly) because the problem is not that there is too much blood, but rather that the pressure setpoint is wrong.

Things like atherosclerosis reduce the space available for blood and increase the pressure without the body realizing the setpoint needs to change, thus why pressure increases.

It's a completely reasonable question. Blood pressure is a function of many variables, including vascular resistance, compliance, heart function, and --yes-- blood volume. In fact, one of the treatments for blood pressure, though rarely a first line, is to use a diuretic to reduce fluid volume. As other posters have commented, the body will compensate this to some degree, and it is not a very lasting or well-controlled effect, so the doctor is correct that bloodletting is not the standard of care for hypertension. But a mental experiment on the extreme margins can help address the question intuitively as well: suppose you removed all the blood, or else suppose you 100x-ed the blood supply. Would pressure fall and rise respectively? Of course it would.

diuretic are super low risk; why wouldn't they be first?

Blood pressure is more of a function of resistance to flow than volume (ignoring things like trauma induced hypovolemic shock - aka bleeding out) - which can be from many causes, including vasodilation/constriction, plaque buildup, compartment syndrome, heart issues (bad rhythm, valve issues, etc.), shock, or regulatory dysfunctions indirectly impacting those areas.

Volume issues, especially difficulty processing waste/removing excess fluid (renal failure or disfunction), can pop up, but reducing volume as a solution is kind of like taking gas out of your gas tank because your throttle keeps getting stuck and you don't want to run anyone over.

Yeah, it can kinda help maybe (and if you're desperate you should do it), but it isn't really addressing the underlying issue. Sometimes you don't have time or the ability to address the underlying issue, but it shouldn't be the first thing to go to.

Not ridiculous that say excess iron or blood volume could be an issue or help if addressed - just not a high odds thing to be tackling usually.