TL;DR: No, read as much independent sources as you can.
While one might (maybe rightfully) accuse you of looking for a justification for omitting a proper literature review. There is a philosophical part to this question. Which reinforces the study of previous research.
This answer consists of two parts: Criteria and Process
Your contribution to what ever field of research needs to satisfy certain criteria in order to be valuable. There might be a lot more criteria but the following two definitely need to be fulfilled:
While it is self evident that a contribution to a field of research needs to contain something new (this might very well be a new data-set), there exists the possibility that available data already falsifies your research. So in order to be sure that your theory/contribution was not already falsified you need to be aware of the rest of the research.
UC Berkeley created a very good overview of the complex process of the scientific method. Nicely showing (besides others) two characteristics of science:
- Science is not linear, but interconnected/complex
- Science is a adaptive in that the outcome of a test might be interpreted differently based on the community which performs the test/analysis.
Both approaches (limited and extensive review of the available literature) will influence the way research will be conducted and both approaches allow for biases to interfere with the research. Assuming that everyone is biased to a certain extend by the experiences of once life the limited study does not prevent biases it just does not add new ones.
Since biases threaten the research in both scenarios it is necessary to prevent (or limit) their impact through awareness and transparency.
Conclusion: In order to maximise the scientific value of the research a comprehensive knowledge/study of the available research is necessary to ensure novelty.