Bucaille, M. 1990. Mummies of the Pharaohs. Modern Medical Investigations NY: St. Martin’s Press

[BOM] The author carried out the initial investigation of the mummy of Ramesses II in Egypt and was instrumental in having the mummy taken to Paris in 1975 for study and conservation.

Pp 186-188 When it comes to interpreting the various samples taken from the mummy [Ramesses II], we should bear in mind the mummified body’s history. The following is a brief summary.
The body was buried over 3200 years ago in the Valley of the Kings in Thebes. In spite of the precautions taken, it was the prey of tomb robbers. In all likelihood, the precious objects and items of jewelry that were placed in contact with the body have disappeared. Violations such as these led the priests of the Twenty-first Dynasty, roughly two hundred years later, to remove the royal mummies to a safer place, thus repeating what they had done for Pharaoh Pinedjem. The priest of Amon did the best they could to repair the damage, and they once again swathed the mummified bodies in wrappings. The mummy of Ramesses II was treated in the same way and finally removed to the hiding place at Deir El Bahari near the Valley of the Kings. It was here that it was discovered in 1881. Even here, however, the royal mummies were yet again subjected to the violations of modern thieves. The mummy was transferred to Lower Egypt, where most of its wrappings were removed in 1886. Unfortunately, its misfortunes ere not yet over. The mummy was mishandled, stored in various places, and even exhibited in a standing position. Finally, it was removed to the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, where it remained until coming to Paris.
It is clear that whenever anything is found that is foreign to the actual body itself, either on the surface or inside the mummy, one cannot always attribute it to either the first embalmment or the second treatment carried out when the priests of Amon restored the body. The moment we know that tomb robbers or pollutants may have introduced foreign bodies into the mummy, we can no longer affirm that such bodies date back to ancient times.
After the wrappings were removed 100 years ago, the abdomen was left gaping open at the evisceration orifice. Therefore it was no longer possible to attach any importance to the presence inside the abdominal cavity of whatever material was found there, since the material could have come from the surrounding environment. This accounts for my surprise upon hearing that the Museum of Anthropology declare that the discovery of morsels of tobacco in the mummy’s abdomen was proof that the ancient Egyptians were familiar with the plant long before it was introduced in the West. I am not disputing the fact that a fragment of vegetation was identified, but it seems impossible to me, even if the fragment was found adhering to the resins on the body, to state that it was introduced in ancient times.
There are two reasons why it was easier to take samples at the Museum of Anthropology than it had been at Cairo. First, we had access to the posterior side of the body, except the points on which it rested, which were quite small because of the pronounced curve of the spinal column. Second, the material used to stuff the abdominal cavity through the evisceration orifice on the left had been removed so that a degree of access was made possible to the area of the abdomen located near this orifice.

The samples taken provided absolute confirmation of the results I had already published before the mummy arrived in Paris, thanks to the work of Dr. Therisol. Obviously, the samples from the actual mummy itself were of more interest, for those tiny fragments and debris that had already fallen from the body were less likely to offer the chance of new discoveries. In both the first and second instances, however, proof of biological contamination was established as a result of the work done by J. Mouchacca and J. R. Steffan at the Cryptogamy and Entomology Laboratories of the National History Museum in Paris. With regard to insects, J. R. Steffan showed that traces of dermestids indeed existed, and that there was even a coleopterous parasite of tobacco (Nicotiana) present. The latter seemed to have nothing whatsoever to do with the biological damage suffered by the mummy, however. The fungi were mainly held responsible, but a distinction must be made between those fungi that may have launched a parasite attack on the material placed in and around the mummy, and those that had affected the mummy itself.
In his article published in Archaeologia in February 1978, Professor Balout included excellent photographs of the spores of a basidiomycete that is highly active on cellulose, and therefore likely to have attacked the linen cloth incorporated into what remains of the resinous shield covering the body of the mummy. In the abdominal cavity, another species of fungi was found and identified.
. . .