There have been many people that claimed they deciphered it, but so far every one of them turned out to be wrong. Theres also a lot of people claiming it to just be nonsense, but proving that is nearly impossible. Comparing the number/frequency/combinations of glyphs in the manuscript to real languages/alphabets shows that it behaves very similar to natural languages in many ways which would indicate it to be a code or cypher, but it also significantly differs from how natural languages behave in many other ways, so its very difficult to say if its a code or not.
The most important step to deciphering it would be to figure out what language it is in, but afaik there hasnt been a conclusion reached in regards to that.
EinpixelHD t1_j4aurxc wrote
Reply to comment by oneplusetoipi in New archival findings on the earliest ownership of the Voynich Manuscript by stegu2
There have been many people that claimed they deciphered it, but so far every one of them turned out to be wrong. Theres also a lot of people claiming it to just be nonsense, but proving that is nearly impossible. Comparing the number/frequency/combinations of glyphs in the manuscript to real languages/alphabets shows that it behaves very similar to natural languages in many ways which would indicate it to be a code or cypher, but it also significantly differs from how natural languages behave in many other ways, so its very difficult to say if its a code or not.
The most important step to deciphering it would be to figure out what language it is in, but afaik there hasnt been a conclusion reached in regards to that.