Nope.
The cite i gave disagrees.
Here is another-
The debate hinges on fundamental questions. If PIE existed, what evidence supports it? How do linguists reconstruct a language never recorded? Can shared features among Indo-European languages only be explained by a common source, or are alternative explanations viable? Beyond linguistics, does archaeology provide corroboration, or does it complicate the picture? These questions are not merely academic—they touch on identity, history, and the reliability of scientific methods applied to the past.
and
PIE was based on many fanciful assumptions. From a logical point of view, its proponents forgot that it is not enough to show that a reconstructed (and imagined) PIE, A, leads to languages B, C, and D, but that the derivation excludes all other reconstructed languages. One must be able to exclude reconstructions such as L*=> C => B => D or M* => D => C => B and any number of permuations thereof.*
This simply cannot be done, and so the PIE reconstruction is simply worthless, and just one of any number of similar reconstructions one can develop.
In retrospect, we cannot say that the labors of the linguists who created it were no worse than that of the scholiasts in the Middle Ages who determined how many angels can be accommodated on the tip of a pin. Because of the wars and violence that PIE has engendered, it should be compared to the similarly sloppy reasoning that led Europe, over the course of a century and a half, to try 80,000 people for witchcraft, half of whom were executed, and often burned alive.
But note i did say-
So, I am not calling it wrong. Still it is an unproven hypothesis.