I am not convinced by the provenance history of the VMS

[Jorge_Stolfi]

For instance, you, as many have, suggest apothecary jars. Here is one from your link:  This jar has curved sides, which are of a gradually changing diameter.

But apothecary jars can have a zillion different shapes.  While the most common seems indeed to be a simple cylinder with slightly concave profile (perhaps for more comfortable and safe gripping), You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view., including two stacked cylinders with straight sides, with a ridge or painted line between the two.

Moreover, don't forget the artistic limitations of the Scribe. As in other illustrations, his mental model of "apothecary jar" must have been only loosely based on real ones, and his renderings of it were probably as realistic as the Zodiac scorpion or the volcanoes on the Rosette page. 

many people, and times, for many decades, have actually suggested that many of the illustrations in the Voynich have been favorably compared to microscopic plant and animal cells, diatoms, and more!

But the resemblances are very weak (like the alleged resemblance of f68v3 and a spiral galaxy). The diagram of You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. also resembles an orange sliced in half, a carriage wheel, a cathedral's round vitral, a Lullian volvelle, ...

And the details are not consistent with those interpretations.  Why would the rays of a diatom's cell have labels on them?  If f86v4 is an cross-section of a plant stem, why are there four "angels" and a moon-face in it?  

Conversely, two essential features of a high-power microscope (capable or seeing the internal structure of diatoms) are a smaller objective lens at the bottom and a support that holds the tube raised and steady with a space under the objective.  The marginal "things" of the Pharma section have neither.

Anyway, the first microscopes capable of seeing cells were made in the late 1670s by Dutchman Leeuwenhoek  They were just You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view..  Double-lens tubular microscopes were developed mostly in the 1700s.  So if the Pharma "things" are indeed meant to be microscopes, they would be a big blunder by the forger -- who supposedly was trying to forge a book that would have been sold to Rudolf II in ~1600 with the claim that it was a Bacon original from the 1300s.   

You claim that the forger was You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.. But that itself would be a mistake hard to justify.  No matter how much Wilfrid enjoyed that book, like any antiques forger he should have done a good deal of research, outside that source, in order to figure out what paleographers expected a "Bacon's original" to look like.

(On the other hand, I now think that Jacobus's "signature" on You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view. is more likely to have been forged by Wilfrid than to have been there before he acquired the book.  I will post the reasons eventually.)

All the best, --stolfi