The oddities of the bigram "ed"

[Dunsel]

In general, it is very hard to explain how the Voynich text can be gibberish, due to its many consistencies throughout the MS. As a consequence, it cannot be used to 'easily' explain anything.
In this particular case, the use of 'ed' is not an on/off from two different hands, but there are intermediate stages (small as they are), and these are in yet another hand.

The emergence (or disappearance - less likely) of 'ed' looks like an evolution which is independent of the meaningful vs. meaningless question.

Oh, the stage is not small, not at all.  It's very blatant if you know where to look.  It'll be in part 3.