GE Applianceson Thursday said it would spend $490 million to move the production of most of its washing machines from China to Kentucky.
The operation will move to the company's massive industrial Appliance Park headquarters in Louisville, Kentucky, where it already manufactures washers and dryers. At least 800 new full-time jobs are expected to be created, the company said in a news release.
"We are bringing laundry production to our global headquarters in Louisville because manufacturing in the U.S. is fundamental to our ‘zero-distance’ business strategy to make appliances as close as possible to our customers and consumers," said GE Appliances president and CEO Kevin Nolan. "This decision is our most recent product reshoring and aligns with the current economic and policy environment."
The investment will bring more than 15 washer models to Building 2 in Appliance Park at the company headquarters, bringing the total area of clothes care production to the equivalent of 33 football fields.
Next door in Building 1, the company produces top load washers and front load dryers.
"Manufacturing in Louisville puts production closer to our designers, engineers and consumers so that together we can create our most innovative laundry platforms," said Lee Lagomarcino, vice president of clothes care at GE Appliances.
The move is expected to be completed by 2027.
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear praised the announcement, saying the new investment "strengthens one of our vital Kentucky assets and underscores our state’s reputation as America’s destination of choice for advanced manufacturing and job creation."
The news came as President Donald Trump is attempting to lure companies back to the United States by imposing tariffs. He has slapped additional tariffs on China, as well as other countries. GE Appliances is a subsidiary of the Haier company, which is based in China.
Appliance Park employs around 8,000 workers and has plants in several other states. Over the past decade, GE Appliances has invested $3.5 billion in its U.S. manufacturing operations.
A higher-than-expected number of miscarriages and other forms of fetal loss were associated with COVID-19 vaccinations in Israel, a new study has revealed.
Researchers found 13 fetal losses—four more than the nine expected—for every 100 pregnant women who received a COVID-19 vaccine during weeks eight to 13 in pregnancy, according to the study, which was published as a preprint on the medRxiv server.
Most people in Israel, including pregnant women, received the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.
Pfizer did not respond by publication time to a request for comment.
The team behind the study includes Retsef Levi, a Massachusetts Institute of Technology researcher who was recently named to the committee that advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on vaccines, and Dr. Tracy Hoeg, who works for the Food and Drug Administration.
The researchers analyzed electronic health records from Maccabi Healthcare Services, one of four organizations that provide health care to Israelis. They looked at 226,395 pregnancies that occurred between March 1, 2016, and Feb. 28, 2022. The primary analysis looked at fetal loss for pregnant women after dose one or dose three of a COVID-19 vaccine, with fetal loss including miscarriage, abortion, and stillbirth.
The researchers came up with an expected number of fetal losses based on a model that drew from data before the COVID-19 pandemic, then compared the expected number of fetal losses with those that occurred from week eight of pregnancy onward.
They identified 13,214 fetal losses after the COVID-19 pandemic started, compared with 12,846 fetal losses in the reference period, finding that women who received a COVID-19 vaccine during weeks eight to 13 in pregnancy experienced a higher-than-expected number of fetal losses.
“If you believe this result ... every 100 women that you would vaccinate during weeks eight to 13, you are going to see close to four additional fetal losses,” Levi told The Epoch Times.
The researchers cautioned that more information is required to say for sure that the vaccines cause fetal losses.
They also noted that when they carried out the same analysis for pregnant women who received a COVID-19 vaccine during weeks 14 to 27, the number of fetal losses was lower than expected.
An additional analysis of pregnant women who received an influenza vaccine from March 1, 2018, to Feb. 28, 2019, also found a lower-than-expected number of fetal losses.
The researchers said those results could stem from what is known as healthy vaccine bias—the data could be skewed because people who receive vaccines are typically healthier than those who do not.
Maccabi Healthcare Services did not return an inquiry by publication time. Dr. Yaakov Segal, head of obstetrics and gynecology medicine at the organization, is one of the paper’s co-authors.
Israel’s Ministry of Health and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which encourages pregnant women to receive a COVID-19 vaccine in any trimester, did not respond to requests for comment by publication time.
“Generally, medical advice to pregnant women follows the precautionary principle and is based on sound and careful research,” Josh Guetzkow, researcher with Hebrew University of Jerusalem and another study co-author, told The Epoch Times via email. “Our study shows just how irresponsible it was for our health authorities to abandon these core principles.”
COVID-19 vaccination was recommended for pregnant women in Israel and the United States early in the COVID-19 pandemic, even though the clinical trials for the vaccines excluded pregnant women.
Moderna’s clinical trial for pregnant women was ultimately terminated, while Pfizer ended its trial early after enrolling just 175 women. The latter found slightly lower COVID-19 incidence among the vaccinated when compared with those who received a placebo.
Some observational studies have determined that pregnant women benefit from COVID-19 vaccination.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recently narrowed its COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and no longer advises COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy.
The new paper was published as a preprint, without peer review. Levi said the paper had been rejected by two journals, and the authors decided that the implications were too important to continue to not release it to the public.
Guetzkow said the researchers are going to keep trying to get the paper published by a journal.
Scientists behind a study suggesting GSK's respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccine could be protective against dementia have said the adjuvant used in the shot may be responsible.
The new observational study, carried out by the University of Oxford and funded by the UK government, found a 29% reduction in the risk of dementia in the 18 months after receiving the Arexvy jab, and follows another study by the team – reported last year – that found a 17% drop with GSK's shingles vaccine Shingrix.
Now, the scientists – led by Professors Maxime Taquet and Paul Harrison – are speculating that the common thread between the two studies is the AS01 adjuvant used in both Arexvy and Shingrix to boost immune responses to the shots. And that could explain why GSK's older shingles vaccine Zostavax – which is not adjuvanted – had a reduced effect.
The latest analysis, published in the Nature journal npj vaccines, draws on information from electronic health records for more than 430,000 people in the US in the TriNetx network. It showed that both Arexvy and Shingrix were similarly effective in reducing dementia risk compared to flu vaccines, which do not contain the AS01 adjuvant.
It is not clear how AS01 might help lower the risk of dementia, but Oxford University said lab studies show that the adjuvant stimulates cells of the immune system that could help protect the brain from some of the harmful processes underlying dementia.
Adding Arexvy into its calculations helped the team explore one other possibility; namely, that targeting the herpes zoster virus that causes shingles could be protective in some way.
"It is not yet known whether these vaccines prevent dementia or, more likely, delay its onset," according to a statement from the university. "Either way, the effect is significant, especially given that no other treatments are known that delay or prevent the condition."
An effect on dementia, while still speculative, builds to the case for use of the RSV and shingles vaccines in older adults, given that both infectious diseases can be debilitating and potentially serious.
"Dementia is not an inevitable part of ageing. Identifying ways to reduce dementia risk is a priority for research, and vaccination offers an intriguing area of exploration," commented Dr Julia Dudley, head of research at Alzheimer's Research UK.
While the study attempted to adjust for factors that could influence risk, such as underlying health conditions and some lifestyle and environmental factors, it cannot rule out that the link between vaccine and dementia risk is due to other factors, she pointed out – something that is acknowledged in the journal paper.
"We do not know if the adjuvant is reducing the risk of dementia or delaying its onset. The follow-up period was only 18 months, so more research is needed to determine the potential long-term effects of the vaccines," added Dudley.
"As we understand more about the biological mechanisms behind any protective effects seen with vaccines, we may be able to investigate new treatment approaches."
The UK is studying cases of pancreatitis in people taking drugs based on GLP-1 receptor agonists for weight loss or type 2 diabetes to see if a person's genetic profile may make them more vulnerable to the side effect.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), which is partnering with Genomics England on the investigation, is calling for anyone who has been hospitalised with acute pancreatitis suspected of being linked to GLP-1 drugs like Novo Nordisk's Ozempic/Wegovy (semaglutide) and Eli Lilly's Mounjaro (tirzepatide) to report it via the UK's Yellow Card scheme.
There have been hundreds of reports of acute and chronic pancreatitis cases in users of these drugs, characterised by pain in the stomach that radiates to the back and does not go away, but so far a definitive link has not been established.
It is worth noting that a study in the US published earlier this year found no increased risk of pancreatitis and may in fact be associated with a lower lifetime risk.
The MHRA and Genomics England intend to tap into the recently launched Yellow Card Biobank project, which is also looking at severe bleeding side effects caused by commonly used anticoagulants to prevent strokes.
The MHRA's chief safety officer, Dr Alison Cave, said that around a third of side effects to medicines could be prevented with the introduction of genetic testing, and predicting people who may be more likely to suffer them could help to reduce costs to the NHS.
Adverse drug reactions are estimated to cost the health service more than £2.2 billion ($3 billion) a year in hospital stays alone, she added.
"Information from the Yellow Card Biobank will help us to better predict those most at risk of adverse reactions – enabling patients across the UK to receive the safest medicine for them, based on their genetic makeup," said Cave.
Patients aged 18 and over who report pancreatitis via the Yellow Card scheme will be asked to submit more information and a saliva sample for DNA testing, with kits posted to participants to use at home.
"GLP-1 medicines like Ozempic and Wegovy have been making headlines, but like all medicines there can be a risk of serious side effects," commented Genomics England's chief scientific officer Prof Matt Brown.
"We believe there is real potential to minimise these with many adverse reactions having a genetic cause," he added. "This next step in our partnership with the MHRA will generate data and evidence for safer and more effective treatment through more personalised approaches to prescription, supporting a shift towards an increasingly prevention-focused healthcare system."
The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that South Carolina can defund Planned Parenthood, clearing the way for other Republican-led states seeking to deprive the country’s largest abortion provider of taxpayer money.
In a 6–3 decision that split along ideological lines, the high court found the 1965 Medicaid Act does not allow individual patients to sue states over decisions to disqualify their preferred providers from receiving Medicaid money — enabling South Carolina to cut off funding for Planned Parenthood.
The ruling overturns lower court decisions that had allowed patients’ lawsuit to move forward. The Richmond, Va-based Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals favored Planned Parenthood by slapping an injunction on South Carolina’s implementation of its ban on funding for abortion.
A woman at the March for Life on Jan. 18, 2019, holds a sign that reads, “Defund Planned Parenthood.”REUTERS
“Like other States, South Carolina has an administrative process that lets providers challenge their exclusion from the State’s Medicaid program,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority.
“… private enforcement does not always benefit the public, not least because it requires States to divert money and attention away from social services and toward litigation. And balancing those costs and benefits poses a question of public policy that, under our system of government, only Congress may answer.”
In 2018, South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster signed an executive order preventing all abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, from receiving Medicaid funding.
Medicaid is a federal and state government program that provides health insurance to over 70 million low-income Americans.
Attorneys for plaintiff Julie Edwards, a patient who is eligible for Medicaid, and Planned Parenthood argued that the ban violated federal law that states beneficiaries “may obtain” medical treatment from qualified providers.
Gorsuch noted that the 60-year-old statute did not define what “qualified” meant and that, typically, concerns about whether states are violating conditions for federal funding usually get addressed by lawsuits from the federal government.
The US Supreme Court in Washington, DC, on April 19, 2023.AFP via Getty Images
“The decision whether to let private plaintiffs enforce a new statutory right poses delicate questions of public policy. New rights for some mean new duties for others,” his opinion stressed. “Though it is rare enough for any statute to confer an enforceable right, spending-power statutes like Medicaid are especially unlikely to do so.”
Liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson penned the dissent and was joined by her two liberal peers, arguing that the Medicaid Act gave patients the right to sue if their preferred provider was deemed disqualified.
“The provision’s history confirms what the text makes evident: that Congress intended the provision to be binding,” Jackson wrote. “Congress made a deliberate choice to protect Medicaid recipients’ ability to choose their own providers by employing statutory language that it knew, based on its Medicare experience, would achieve that end.”
“Congress’s intent could not have been clearer.”
Direct federal funding of abortion is already against the law, but conservatives have long sought to cut off entitlement money that goes to health care providers who provide abortion, even though that money is technically used for services that are unrelated to terminating a pregnancy.
Conservative Justice Clarence Thomas inked a concurring opinion arguing that the high court should go further in limiting plaintiffs’ abilities to sue for constitutional violations under the Civil Rights Act of 1987.
South Carolina has a law on the books that bans abortion after six weeks, but Planned Parenthood still has clinics in Charleston and Columbia that legally terminate pregnancies.
Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic was the most high-profile abortion-related case before the Supreme Court this term.
A spike in viral infections has sickened thousands of travelers and caused several deaths at some popular European destinations.
Four countries — Austria, Czechia, Hungary and Slovakia — have reported a spike in hepatitis A cases between January and May 2025, according to a rapid risk assessment issued by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC).
In total, 2,097 cases have been reported across the four countries.
Slovakia, which has been dealing with an active outbreak since 2022, represents 880 of those cases. Czechia is the next most affected country, reporting 600 cases and six deaths, the ECDC stated. Hungary has reported 530 cases in 2025, and Austria has reported 87.
In total, 2,097 cases have been reported across the four countries.Getty Images/iStockphoto
The disease is mainly spread through contaminated food or water, or through close contact with infected people.
Dr. Marc Siegel, Fox News senior medical analyst, said that hepatitis A is a “widely transmissible” disease that spreads easily among food handlers and “can get you very sick.”
People who have not received the hepatitis A vaccination or been infected by the virus are susceptible, the agency noted. Vaccinations are given in two doses, six to 12 months apart, according to Siegel.
“People will have lifetime immunity after infection,” the doctor noted. “A doctor can check your titres (levels of blood antibodies) to document that you are immune from prior vaccination.”
Groups most affected by the infections include people who are homeless, use or inject recreational drugs or live in unsanitary conditions, as well as those with limited access to healthcare.
“Within these groups, the risk of the disease is assessed as moderate for those below 40 years of age and high for adults 40 years of age or older, as the severity of the disease increases with age,” the ECDC stated.
The disease is mainly spread through contaminated food or water, or through close contact with infected people. BSIP/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
“For people with predisposing liver disease or older adults, the risk can be very high. The risk for the broader population in these countries is assessed as low to moderate.”
Those who are immunosuppressed are also at a higher risk, the alert said.
Not everyone will develop symptoms, but those who do may notice the following common effects, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Dark urine or clay-colored stools
Diarrhea
Fatigue
Fever
Joint pain
Loss of appetite
Nausea, stomach pain or vomiting
Yellow skin or eyes (jaundice)
“This outbreak reminds us that hepatitis A can cause serious illness and death, especially among people with limited access to healthcare and basic hygiene,” said Ole Heuer, head of the ECDC’s One Health Unit, in a press release.
Those who are immunosuppressed are also at a higher risk, the alert said.LightRocket via Getty Images
“We need to strengthen outreach, provide access to vaccination in groups more likely to be exposed and ensure basic sanitation, especially in response to the increase in cases.”
To address the outbreak, the ECDC recommends investigating potential means of transmission of hepatitis A, such as “possible foodborne transmission or spill-overs into other groups at increased risk of infection.”
The agency also calls for targeted vaccination programs, “post-exposure prophylaxis” to close contacts to prevent infection, and more genetic testing of the virus, as well as increased education and awareness among high-risk groups.
According to the CDC, receiving the hepatitis A vaccine or immune globulin (medication containing antibodies) within two weeks of exposure can prevent illness.
