You didn't even bother to read the review article I linked, did you? The whole point is that the data has been misinterpreted, just like the site you linked.
I'm waiting for you to send me the $31.50 to read the full-text.
Their conclusion is about a specific claim for fish oil, re CAD. Examine.com is looking at more than just CAD. If it has a health benefit outside of the CAD claims, then I don't see how you can call it snake oil. Particularly, a reduction in triglycerides. The abstract of what you linked (again, just let me know where you'd like to send the $31.50 so I can read this full-text that you are linking to) is discussing one effect of fish oil and Examine is looking at any possible effects (and many say it has negligible to no effect, but some do).
There is no centralized data from which all fish oil studies came from. It simply stated that the impetus was a study that had misinterpreted data. The rest is exclusive to it.
Except it's not - http://examine.com/supplements/Fish+Oil/#main_clinical_resul...
All studies are cited at the very bottom (720+ in total)