>actually gives you much more of a grounding in non-drug therapies than someone who can read the original research
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.
I agree here, though I personally wouldn't trust a single doctor to him/herself be able to parse, as you say, the research.
Research is written at a peer level and most doctors are not trained or don't care to know how to interpret the results of research. Not to mention that the vast majority of research is extremely specific.
>Research is written at a peer level and most doctors are not trained or don't care to know how to interpret the results of research. Not to mention that the vast majority of research is extremely specific.
Most research (the vast majority) is also bogus too. Until it's distilled to common practice, people shouldn't really touch it with a bargepole.
I read your larger comment and I don't agree with most of what you're saying as a generalization.
This though:
> Until it's distilled to common practice, people shouldn't really touch it with a bargepole.
I can agree with. Most research if it's not done in the clinic and proven, has parameters so specific that it is impossible to apply to a single member of a population without that member having the exact parameters that the original research had.
Even then, the original research was probably done on some animal and not a human.
Then we do translational testing/research which gets done on a more human like animal and if we're lucky some human samples (given a disease). Then the clinical trials etc.
Though a review of the current literature can be beneficial. But you'd still need to have training to be able to interpret what you're reading.
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.