perhaps the text is simply anagrams of Italian words.
Then why does she only offer up a single page of plants as decoded anagrams? What about the other ~199 pages? What about the pages of block text?
More importantly, why does the Voynich Manuscript flip between things derived from plants like gallic acid, oil and then return to naming the plants? Furthermore, I call the labeling of the plants to be absolute complete bullshit. Yes, I said it. I'm not a botanist but I grew up on a farm and I know many of these plants very well and I can't tell any distinguishing characteristics apart from the drawings.
While plant names do change, some have stayed consistent over the years. However plants that are heavily used for food, medicine and flavouring tend to remain the same over time.
I have studied a bit of botany and herbal medicine and while I don't have the referred to text in front of me, I do find the comparisons a bit ludicrous.
Particular bad examples : garlic, rose bush, juniper berry, bay leaf
A particular glaring one for me is "nutgall", which presumably refers to oak galls, and were used to make ink, that drawing makes no sense to me.
I think this "solution" has a bit too much selective matching.