WHO is just an NGO, a reflection of multiple member states cooperating through it. Not all states are faithful or trustworthy.
Those who listen to, act on advice from, censor and attack opposition to the WHO give it authority. This seems to be very upsetting to you for some reason.
There is nothing wrong with my initial comment about the WHO's authority, it absolutely has a measure of authority. Why you would try to make up some definition of the word "authority" that nobody else uses, and then try to attack my comment with it is beyond me.
This is trying to play a psychological game with other posters. No point continuing any argument after that, as evidently you have no good intention of having a respectful and balanced discussion, as later posts clearly indicate.
Just because we have different opinions, there's no need for such cheap tricks.
Anyways, to finish my point of view: I have no crocodile tears to shed for authorities trying to scapegoat one of many NGO they are member of. Each country have their own experts, many of who serve for WHO from time to time, so have ample means to come up with new findings at any point in time. Such findings can of course always be shared with the international community, and with WHO. Collaboration is about what you contribute, not what you try to take away from it.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but I don't find it coherent in any other regard than authorities not taking responsibility for their own decisions, actions, indecisions and inaction.
You shouldn't have been the one to start using them then.