I was going to write something similar, but nickpelling's comment is better than what I would have come up with:
"The shockingly dull truth is that, if you compare what these two authors have published in an American herbal medicine quarterly with the hundreds of bad Voynich theories out there, they're doing basically the same thing in basically the same way:-
"(1) fixating on a single observation that just happened to excite their imagination
"(2) doggedly following the logic of that single observation to the end
"(3) ignoring or dismissing all evidence that would seem to contradict their story"
"The shockingly dull truth is that, if you compare what these two authors have published in an American herbal medicine quarterly with the hundreds of bad Voynich theories out there, they're doing basically the same thing in basically the same way:-
"(1) fixating on a single observation that just happened to excite their imagination
"(2) doggedly following the logic of that single observation to the end
"(3) ignoring or dismissing all evidence that would seem to contradict their story"