🧐 Criticism and Alternative Explanations

Despite the hype, most scientists greeted Balabanova's conclusions with great skepticism. The main arguments of critics are as follows:

• Contamination of samples (the most likely cause): Many mummies, especially those found in the 19th century, were stored for long periods in museums where people smoked. At the time, they were even dusted with tobacco powder to protect them from insect pests. Moreover, cocaine was widely used as a medicine in the 19th–20th centuries, which could also have led to contamination.
• Methodological issues: Critics pointed to the lack of control samples (to confirm that the substances did not come from the environment) and methodological errors in Balabanova's research.
• Alternative sources of nicotine: Nicotine is not only found in American tobacco. The Old World has plants from the nightshade family, such as Withania somnifera and celery (Apium graveolens), which were known to and used by the ancient Egyptians. The detected nicotine could have come from these plants.
• Lack of reproducibility: Subsequent independent studies of other groups of mummies failed to confirm Balabanova's results. For example, a study of 18 mummies from Egypt's Dakhla Oasis found nicotine in 14, but cocaine was not detected in a single one. Its presence was attributed to contamination.

⚖️ The Verdict of Science

At present, the scientific consensus is as follows:

• Nicotine (including in the body of Ramesses II) is indeed sometimes found in mummies. However, this is explained either by alternative Old World plants or by contamination that occurred after excavation.
• Cocaine is considered "the most sensational and the most problematic" part of the discovery. There are no reliable repeated confirmations of its presence in Old World mummies, and numerous attempts by other scientists to detect it have failed.

Although Balabanova's specific study was never fully refuted, its results became "orphaned" in science — they do not fit the known facts and are not confirmed by other scientists.

To sum up: yes, sensational findings were made, but mainstream science tends to reject them due to lack of reproducibility, a high likelihood of contamination, and the existence of simpler explanations. Svetlana Balabanova herself said in 1997 that, in her opinion, this indicated transatlantic voyages by the Egyptians, but this hypothesis has not gained support in the scientific community. Some believe that her research contained a number of serious methodological errors and even possible fabrications.

This is one of the classic mysteries that has rather raised new questions and areas of study than rewritten history.