It makes no difference if the janitor or other low ranking people have good intentions. The people at the top is what it's about and they're good at gaining power and money because they deeply care about those things so they tend to be corrupt. Some are not, but most are.
Oh sure, most of the time the people at the top will be nominated for political reasons and will have a political agenda (financial corruption is not necessary, you can just put someone who shares your beliefs and think he's acting for a good cause). However, they aren't the ones who'll conduct your research or write your reports.
Now let's say you're the WHO boss, appointed by Bill Gates with the mission to vaccinate everyone with your mind-control vaccine. One of your team gets reports about huge problems caused by vaccinations. First, unless your orgnization forces everything to go through you, there's a risk it will be published without you knowing it. But let's assume you are aware of these reports. Obviously, you can't have them published without jeopardizing Bill Gates' world domination plans.
So what do you do?
You can't just walk in the office of the people who got the report and tell them to ignore it. Since most of them have good intentions, there's a risk you'll have a whistleblower. And even if you don't, those who sent the reports will probably figure that there's something wrong.
You can't fire the team. They aren't under your direct control. You can try to pressure the boss of the boss of their boss, but it's risky. You can try to change the organization so that this team becomes understaffed/underfunded/irrelevant. But such an organizational change is slow. You can try to change the team, but you'll have to start by replacing the boss of the boss of their boss, who'll then replace the boss of their boss who'll then replace their boss who'll then re-arrange the team. This is also a slow process.
And the donor should be able to refuse to donate based on the organsiation not obeying.
Funny you should mention that, because that whole WHO funding story started because Trump decided to refuse to donate. Do you know the reason given by the White House? It's because in their opinion the WHO didn't handle the situation correctly and trusted China's reports. The reason the WHO trusted China's report is because it's what the WHO should do according to the agreements they're based on. They don't have the authority to question the report of a country or to conduct their own investigation without the country's consent.
So the WHO did follow their rules, and it led them to losing a donor because they didn't obey them.
So it seems to show that the WHO would rather lose a donator than obeying them.
That is what lobbying is. Paying the government to get what you want. It's why we have laws like the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.
Exactly, except that it's paying a political party or a politician, not the government.