> Traditional analyses often fall into two camps: statistical entropy checks or wild guesswork.

I'd argue that these are just the camps that non-traditional, amateur analysis efforts fall into. I've only briefly skimmed Voynich work, but my impression is that, traditionally, more academic analyses rely on a combination of linguistic and cryptological analysis. This does happen to be informed by some statistical analysis, but goes way beyond that.

For example, as I recall the strongest argument that Voynichese probably isn't just an alternative alphabet for a well-known language relies on comparing Voynichese to the general patterns for how writing systems map symbols to sounds. That permits the development of more specific hypotheses about how it could possibly function, including how likely it is to be an alphabet or abjad, and, hypotheses about which characters could plausibly represent more than one sound, possible digraphs, etc. All of that work casts severe doubt on the likelihood of it representing a language from the area because it just can't plausibly represent a language with the kinds of phonological inventories we see in the language families that existed in that place and time.

There's also been some pretty interesting work on identifying individual scribes based on a confluence of factors including, but not limited to, analysis of the text itself. Some of the inferred scribes exclusively wrote in the A language (oh yeah, Voynichese seems to contain two distinct "languages"), some exclusively wrote in the B language, I think they've even hypothesized that there's one who actually used both languages.

There isn't a lot of popular awareness of this work because it's not terribly sexy to anyone but a linguistics nerd. But I'd guess that any attempt to poke at the Voynich manuscript that isn't informed by it is operating at a severe disadvantage. You want to be standing on the shoulders of the tallest giants, not the ones with the best social media presence.