You fell for the rhetorical trick in the first quote. Biodiversity is one tiny aspect of conservation, but they hoped you would conflate that with just meaning the rest aren't about conservation at all. Researching medicine needed to treat animals is conservation, but has nothing to do with biodiversity, as an example.

The article is full of bad-faith interpretations like this.

I didn't talk about people going for education by reading placards, I talked about people experiencing humanization of the animals by seeing them in person.

One study also showed a link between vaccines and autism. There is a study out there for any claim you want to make: reproducing the outcome (and showing a cause) in future studies makes an actual point.