Train of thought while reading title and comments:
First: Genome cannot physically contain a bio-virus, so this must be genetic code, acting as a "computer virus"
Second: Oh they're talking about viral genome embedded in human genome. Got it.
Third: But wait, bio-virus genome embedded in human genome does not by-definition imply that there is something wrong with that human genome. It could just be an innocuous part of the viral genome.
Fourth: Parts of human genome that could act as "computer virus" (i.e., be malicious to the human), and parts of human genome that come from a bio-virus may have some overlap. But you could have two other options too: (a) part of human genome that is malicious but not from a bio-viral source, (b) part of human genome that is from a bio-virus but is not malicious.
First: Genome cannot physically contain a bio-virus, so this must be genetic code, acting as a "computer virus"
Second: Oh they're talking about viral genome embedded in human genome. Got it.
Third: But wait, bio-virus genome embedded in human genome does not by-definition imply that there is something wrong with that human genome. It could just be an innocuous part of the viral genome.
Fourth: Parts of human genome that could act as "computer virus" (i.e., be malicious to the human), and parts of human genome that come from a bio-virus may have some overlap. But you could have two other options too: (a) part of human genome that is malicious but not from a bio-viral source, (b) part of human genome that is from a bio-virus but is not malicious.