The great majority of effects tested and listed in the 'Human Effect Matrix' at [2] are either minor in magnitude or non-existent. That would seem to contradict your statement that Omega-3 is a miracle chemical.
The parent to my original comment claimed that Omega-3 is a "wonder chemical", having many beneficial effects, and cited that website as evidence. I was responding to that claim by pointing out that the website does not in fact appear to back up their position.
The problem is you expanded OP's claim. For starters OP never used your interpretation of wonder chemical: "cures many ailments". The article was on depression and OP never broadened the "therapeutic horizon." The linked website did not describe the effects of fish oil on depression as "minor in magnitude or non-existent."
> Score another point for fish oil supplementation, on top of the already enormous pile of scientific research showing it to be a miracle chemical (and I definitely don't say that lightly) [2].
I read that as "here is yet another thing that omega-3 treats", rather than "here is yet more evidence that omega-3 treats depression". Especially since it followed a quote from the article about anti-inflammatory properties rather than specifically mentioning depression.
Followed by:
> Seriously, if you aren't getting enough omega 3 fatty acids, [...], you're seriously missing out on some good stuff. Among supplement enthusiasts, it's consistently declared to be one of the only supplements that's actually useful.
Among supplement enthusiasts, not among depression sufferers.
But then it can be so easy to misunderstand the written word; perhaps I missed the intent of the original comment.
Am I reading it wrong?