The title conditioned on "for those living in houses"

You said the result could be correlation of green space, income, and CVD.

I pointed out that income was a control, so your criticism was not valid.

You now move the goal posts and engage with the part of the study about apartment dwellers.

Allow me to try one last time: for those living in houses, nearby green space that includes trees reduces risk of death from CVD, after controlling for income.

Keep doing mental gymnastics, but your initial criticism was not valid.

Hey neat you spent 5 seconds thinking of a possible omitted variable (income) that could be correlated to both cardiovascular disease (CVD) and neighborhood.

But before saying that a published study could just be picking up on this omitted variable correlation, perhaps you could open the paper and see if income controls were included in the specification:

"Confounders were selected to address issues of selection into neighborhoods containing more green space that are also known correlates of CVD, including sea, age, annual household income..."

Your criticism is not valid. Please engage with the content before sharing reasons it could be wrong, because in this case those reasons have explicitly already been accounted for.