One might call it "disordered thinking," but what they are talking about is so far outside the simple but strict confines of the scientific method that I usually have little interest in reading about this sort of thing.  Some points to consider:

 

1.  What the "experts" found when they looked for "HIV" is a lot of cellular junk, such as "microvessicles."  This material can indeed be "immunosuppressive," as just about too much of anything can be, but this has nothing to do with a "virus" destroying a particular kind of cell in a particular way.

 

2.  Mostly, when they talk of "HIV" they are talking about "markers" that are supposed to be present if the textbook model or assumptions are correct, which is a huge leap of faith by itself.  Then, on top of this, they don't control for these lab artifact observations correctly, if at all.  Thus, they just keep spinning wider webs of deception as they go along.

 

3.  The math is beyond my level of interest, because if the initial assumptions are wrong, the numbers generated can be total nonsense, not just in "HIV/AIDS" but in other medical/biological issues (like cholesterol levels).  Because a model that is totally incorrect can in fact appear to account for certain phenomena, the numbers people are only dealing with a minor aspect of what now comes under the banner of "HIV/AIDS" cases, and one that is too complex to be reduced in a way that can be tested by the scientific method.

 

4.  The "orthodoxy" never states exactly what their claim is, and they often contradict each other.  This is unacceptable even in history, which is not a science, and here it can cost lives, and so is something that future generations might consider a "crime against humanity."  In the future, you might want to ask any "orthodox" person exactly what his claim about "HIV/AIDS" is.  If there is no specific and clear hypothesis, you can point out that science is not concerned with phantom notions.  When they decide to present a formal hypothesis, you can then try to investigate it properly.

Well, what is it a "gold standard" for?  "HIV?"  To me, a few "retroviral" particles produced in a lab dish, under conditions that do not occur in the body, are irrelevant, so having a "gold standard" for these particles is of little interest to me.  I guess the answer to your question (from me) is that it first has to be demonstrated that whatever you seek the "gold standard" for is the causative factor before you waste time devising tests for the masses to determine if this agent is present.