I don't think one can actually "read the original research" (with the all the prerequisite and pressupossed knowledge that entails) without either having been to medical school and have similar training of his own to such a level.
Having access to said research and being able to read it (in the nominal sense) is not the same as actually being able to "read it" (e.g. understand all that it entails, even things that are not explicitly said).
Even less so for "well referenced and balanced synopses of said research from people one's trust" unless said people are doctors AND have examined you personally. Some well respected pop science journalist's online synopses won't cut it.
In case you doubt your doctor's results, which can of course be not up to par (doctors are fallible too) the prudent thing to do would be to seek counsel with another doctor(s) for a second opinion.