>fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too. Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

That's because they are Anglophone, just as the author of the text is. Specially true for the original text done in this technique. I've already done this once, but here goes again, and just like the last time, I'm not leaving the favorite pairs together:

"To percott our mbeerms' pricvay, we work olny wtih cinomeaps that aerge to mnaiaitn snortg ciodeitnnailfty ponottirces and limit the use of imitoorfann we pirdvoe. We do not pmerit teshe comnipeas to sell to ohetr trhid pierats the ifraintoomn we pidrove to them."

Or this:

"You don’t have to be a guenis to rialzee that capslinolg a dzeon dotkesp stemyss with 500-watt power suilepps into a slinge svreer with a 2000-watt power sluppy saves power and cloonig cotss. It’s also ovoubis that csipollang a few hendurd winkoostarts into just a few pishcayl sveerrs would sslah the power bill much fhuterr, while rundcieg the oarheevd of dotskep ssteym reapirs and remapleenct prats. With cahep detoksp tinlearms, total power cuoptoismnn per seat drops diaratcalmly, as does the heat greentead by hdaarrwe, ruiltsneg in lower air coindinntoig costs."

And mind you, I stuck with the original rules, that any word's first and last character remains intact. You would never become yuo. If I played by your relaxed rules...

"hlymnot neazaimg on Uslavi XoorPf dan redealt cheltnoogies wrentit in phissan. 8 yaser dol. Psileerhad in Fox phissan gnikesap drlow. Alceetocrnil nad reapp tiodine. FrePoxss is tatedreg to phel Fox posledveer to sue the scinologthee hatt pkee them and rheit nampicoes adeah of the tesb. At royu bwe gape you heav orem nhat 800 scialert autob..."