STAR TREK ACTOR WALTER KOENIG DEAD AT 90

Page Six

 

‘Star Trek’ actor Walter Koenig dead at 90

By Vanessa Serna

Published Oct. 26, 2026, 1:54 p.m. ET

 

Original “Star Trek” cast member Walter Koenig, who played Ensign Pavel Chekov, died at age 90 over the weekend.

 

The actor passed away at his North Hollywood, California, home on Sunday, his agency shared via a Facebook post Monday.

 

The agency confirmed that the actor died of old age and was with his daughter, Danielle, and niece when he passed.

 

“Walter’s legacy extends far beyond the screen,” the statement read. “Through countless convention appearances and interactions with fans, he shared his kindness, wit, and appreciation with everyone fortunate enough to meet him.”

 

“He understood what ‘Star Trek’ meant to people and embraced the community that grew around it,” the agency continued.

 

“Thank you, Walter, for the memories, the inspiration, and for boldly going where few have gone before.”

 

Koenig was mourned by his “Star Trek” co-star George Takei, who played the role of Sulu.

 

“My heart is heavy,” the fellow actor wrote in a heartfelt Facebook statement, explaining he and Koenig first crossed paths in 1960 and stayed friends ever since.

 

“Walter was more than Chekov,” Takei added. “He was a writer, a teacher, a thoughtful man, and a loyal friend. To the fans who loved him for so many years, thank you. He loved you too.”

 

Koenig was born on Sept. 14, 1936, in Chicago, and was raised in New York City by his parents, who were Russian Jewish immigrants.

 

He enrolled as a premed major at Grinnell College in Iowa before later transferring and graduating from the University of California, Los Angeles, with a Bachelor of Arts in psychology, according to his Hollywood Walk of Fame bio.

 

While studying at UCLA, he was encouraged by a professor to kick-start his career in acting, which ultimately led him to New York’s Neighborhood Playhouse.

 

One of Koenig’s first roles was an appearance in the TV series “Combat!” in 1962, followed by an episode of “The Untouchables” in 1963.

 

He also appeared on two episodes of “General Hospital” as Charlie Turner in 1963 before ultimately landing his iconic role as Chekov in the “Star Trek” TV series in 1967.

 

During a 2013 interview with the TV Academy Foundation, Koenig candidly admitted that he had never seen “Star Trek” until he joined the cast for Season 2.

 

Koenig learned he landed the role shortly after his audition when he spent a few hours alone in a room until a wardrobe assistant came to get him.

 

“He drops on his knees in front of me,” Koenig recalled. “[He] takes my crotch in his hand, and I’m saying, ‘What are you doing?!’ I didn’t see the tape-measuring ruler in his other hand, and he was measuring from my crotch to my cuff to decide how long my pants should be. He says, ‘You do have to have a costume, don’t you?'”

 

“And that’s the auspicious way I learned I was on ‘Star Trek’ and it was going to change my life,” Koenig continued.

 

Koenig starred in the show through Season 3 in 1968. He shared the screen alongside William Shatner as Captain James T. Kirk and Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock.

 

Koenig reprised his role in “Star Trek: The Motion Picture” in 1979, followed by “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” in 1982 and “Star Trek III: The Search for Spock” in 1984.

 

He also appeared in the following movies from 1986 to 1994, and in other sequels for the franchise.

 

Koenig’s last movie credit was the 2025 film “Raging Midlife.” He also starred as himself in the 2025 30-minute short “Lost Voyages: Phase II and the Rebirth of Star Trek.”

 

He married Judy Levitt, who also starred in the “Star Trek” movies, in 1965. They shared Danielle and their late son, Andrew, who died by suicide in 2010, and were together until Levitt passed away in 2022 at the age of 83.

UTAH COUPLE CLAIMS VETERINARIAN ACCIDENTALLY EUTHANISED THEIR DOG

PEOPLE

 

Utah Couple Claims Veterinarian Mistakenly Euthanized Their Yorkshire Terrier, Lilly, Instead of Giving Her an Allergy Shot

By Adam England  Published on September 17, 2026 10:36AM EDT

 

A Utah couple is grieving after, they claim, their dog was euthanized in error during a recent veterinary visit.

 

Cody and Amy Zylks recently lost their 16-year-old dog, Remy, and were planning to take his body to the Southern Utah Animal Hospital in Cedar City for cremation, ABC affiliate KTVX reported.

 

At the same time, they made an appointment for their 9-year-old Yorkshire terrier, Lilly, to receive an allergy shot on Friday, Sept. 11, per Fox affiliate KSTU.

 

Cody said he didn’t notice anything unusual when he arrived at the office, but conceded that he was slightly distracted by saying goodbye to Remy at the time.

 

He said the vet administered what he thought was an allergy shot as normal, but that Lilly began going limp.

 

When he asked why, he claimed the vet said it was a euthanasia shot, to which he told KTVX he “fell to the floor” and “started to yell,” explaining Lilly only needed an allergy shot.

 

Cody claims the vet simply told him, “Well, we can’t fix it now, we can just buy you a new dog.”

 

He told the outlet he was “in disbelief that something that tragic and something that important was overlooked.”

 

Amy added, per KTVX, “To hear that news, you just go numb. It’s surreal... I just lost one baby. I can’t be losing another.”

 

The couple claimed that the vet, Dr. Zachary Francisco, told them in a phone call that the office had “mixed up” the allergy shot with a shot for a cat who had been brought in to be euthanized the same day.

 

The couple don’t have children, telling the outlet that they treat their “fur babies” like their kids instead.

 

“She just knows what people need, and she’s there to just help deliver what they need to comfort them,” Amy told KTVX of Lilly.

 

“She’s just the sweetest loving dog, and she gave every day of her life just to love everyone, love her brothers and sisters, love her family members or anyone that met her.”

 

In a statement shared with KTVX, Dr. Zachary Francisco, the veterinarian, admitted the “major error” and sent his “sincerest apologies” to the couple.

 

Francisco explained that he was in surgery when a technician told him a pet was in for euthanasia, so he said he’d come to the front after the surgery was completed.

 

He went into the examination room about 20 minutes later and asked Cody if he was ready or if he needed more time, claiming in his statement that he said he was ready.

 

Francisco said he asked Cody if he’d like to be up at the table with the dog for the shot, but said he didn’t respond and so went forward with the euthanasia.

 

“It was only after the euthanasia was completed that he stated we were supposed to only be giving an allergy injection,” he explained, but said he’d ensure the same mistake would not be repeated.

 

“We would like to emphasize that our clinic does everything we can for the preservation of life for every animal that is brought into our facility,” Francisco added.

 

PEOPLE reached out to the Southern Utah Animal Hospital for comment but did not immediately hear back.

USING POLITICALLY INCORRECT LANGUAGE DOESN'T ACTUALLY CAUSE PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM

New York Post

 

Using non-PC words doesn’t actually cause psychological harm: study

By McKenzie Beard

Published Sep. 17, 2026, 1:43 p.m. ET

 

This may leave the language police speechless.

 

Over the last decade, a growing movement has sought to scrub words considered harmful or offensive from the lexicon, replacing them with alternatives proponents say are less psychologically distressing to hear and read.

 

But new research suggests there’s little evidence that the swap actually improves well-being — and in some cases, people prefer the originals.

 

In the study, scientists from MacEwan University in Canada and Stetson University in Florida recruited 616 US adults and asked them to rate 175 pairs of words and phrases.

 

Each pair included a term flagged as “harmful” by language guides from academic and professional groups, including Stanford and the American Psychological Association, along with a suggested alternative.

 

Most were everyday words and phrases that the guides considered potentially offensive because of their history or associations, rather than outright insults or slurs — though a few of those made the list, too.

 

For example, some guides recommend swapping “master bedroom” for “primary bedroom” because of the former’s alleged ties to slavery. Others suggest replacing “pipeline” with “pathway” over concerns about the term’s association with companies transporting crude oil through tribal lands and polluting local water supplies.

 

There were also some everyday expressions you might not think twice about. Some guides flag “blind review” in favor of “anonymous review,” arguing that the former could be viewed as ableist toward visually impaired people. “Unenlightened,” meanwhile, was offered as an alternative to “tone-deaf,” because the term uses a physical disability as a metaphor for a lack of knowledge or awareness.

 

In the study, the participants read each of the “harmful” terms in a sentence and rated how familiar and acceptable it was, as well as how much anxiety it caused them.

 

Scientists found that most of the supposedly offensive words were rated as highly acceptable, with some even beating out the recommended replacements.

 

A closer look at language

 

Here are some of the words deemed potentially “harmful” by language guides and their suggested alternatives.

 

Guru (replacement: expert)

Crazy (replacement: wild)

Ballsy (replacement: bold)

Master list (replacement: list)

Seminal (replacement: groundbreaking)

Rule of thumb (replacement: standard rule)

Blacklist (replacement: denylist)

Sold down the river (replacement: betrayed)

Trigger warning (replacement: content note)

Master bedroom (replacement: primary bedroom)

Pipeline (replacement: pathway)

Stand-up meeting (replacement: quick meeting)

Normal (replacement: ordinary)

Powwow (replacement: meeting)

Pull the trigger (replacement: give it a try)

Black sheep (replacement: outcast)

A cakewalk (replacement: easy)

Elderly (replacement: older)

Abort (replacement: cancel)

Whipped into shape (replacement: put in order)

Guys (replacement: folks)

Slave labor (replacement: overworked)

 

“Pregnant woman,” for example, ranked among the top 10 “harmful” terms that participants preferred over the recommended alternative, “birthing person.” The same went for “breastfeed” over “chestfeeding” and “Hispanic” over “Latinx.”

 

The participants also preferred “addicted” to “hooked” and “victim” to “person who has been impacted by.”

 

“Participants view the harmful language as generally acceptable and are willing to use them so long as they are not pejoratives,” the researchers concluded.

 

The team then put the findings to a second test to gauge just how harmful these words actually are. They randomly assigned another 334 adults to read one of two versions of a short story — one with the “offensive” words and one with the recommended alternatives.

 

After, participants completed surveys that measured their reading comprehension, anxiety, positive and negative emotions and feelings of social inclusion.

 

Again, the supposedly harmful language failed to produce the psychological effects the guides warn about.

 

The scientists found no measurable difference in well-being between the two groups. Reading a story filled with terms flagged as harmful didn’t increase anxiety, reduce feelings of belonging or dampen positive emotions.

 

“We also find no evidence that participants from marginalized groups are more negatively impacted by exposure to harmful language than participants who are not from marginalized groups,” the authors wrote.

 

In fact, they added, the only people who showed any negative reaction to the harmful language “were those with higher levels of moral elitism and need for recognition.”

 

The results suggest that most of the terminology flagged by the language guides was viewed as acceptable and didn’t produce measurable psychological harm in the experiments.

 

“As such, there is little need to cast those who use terms such as pipeline, master bedroom, breastfeeding and blind review, as seeking to cause harm and hence needing to be punished socially,” the study authors wrote.

 

The scientists did, however, highlight an important caveat: “The results of this study should not be used as an excuse for those who seek to use racial slurs, ethnic epithets, taboo language, or other pejoratives,” they cautioned. “Our findings do not apply to that category of words or phrases.”

NASA UNVEILED ITS FIRST SPACE SHUTTLE FIFTY YEARS AGO, BUT IT NEVER MADE IT TO SPACE

PEOPLE

 

NASA Unveiled Its First Space Shuttle, the Enterprise, 50 Years Ago Today – But It Never Flew Into Space

The name of the space shuttle, which rolled out on Sept. 17, 1976, was inspired by the starship from ‘Star Trek’

By David Chiu  Published on September 17, 2026 07:52PM EDT

 

Unlike the fictional U.S.S. Enterprise from the Star Trek television series, the real-life space shuttle that shared the same name never made it to the final frontier.

 

Fifty years ago, on Sept. 17, 1976, NASA unveiled its own version of the Enterprise as NASA’s first space shuttle orbiter, according to the space agency.

 

The origins of the space shuttle program began in 1972 when President Richard Nixon requested NASA to develop a partially reusable space transportation system that would “revolutionize transportation into near space.”

 

Construction of the shuttle started in 1974 at Rockwell International’s plant in Downey, Calif., the agency said, and continued for the next two years with final assembly done at Rockwell’s facility in Palmdale, Calif.

 

The agency had intended to name the OV-101 orbiter Constitution. However, a letter-writing campaign mounted by 100,000 fans of Star Trek called on NASA to name it Enterprise, after the starship from the original TV series, which ran from 1966 to 1969.

 

In a memo to NASA, President Gerald Ford lent his support to calling the shuttle Enterprise, explaining that he was “partial to the name.”

 

At the Sept. 17, 1976, rollout ceremony of the shuttle, hundreds of invited guests attended — including Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry and cast members DeForest Kelley, George Takei, James Doohan, Nichelle Nichols, Leonard Nimoy and Walter Koenig, per NASA. The event also coincided with the 10th anniversary of the TV series’ debut.

 

Another rollout of the shuttle occurred the next day for the general public and Rockwell employees.

 

However, Enterprise never made it off the ground, as the agency said it wasn’t designed to fly in space. In 1977, the shuttle was transported to NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center (now known as NASA’s Armstrong Flight Research Center), at Edwards Air Force Base in California, where it was prepared for approach and landing tests. Those exercises laid the groundwork for the space shuttle program, which kicked off in 1981 with the launch of Columbia.

 

As for the Enterprise space shuttle, it was displayed at the National Air and Space Museum in 2003 before moving over to the Intrepid Museum in New York City nine years later.

 

“Enterprise never went to space, but its lasting legacy and role in space history is undeniably clear,” read the Intrepid’s website marking the shuttle’s 50th anniversary rollout.

 

Star Trek itself celebrated its milestone 60th anniversary in 2026. The first episode of the original series, “The Man Trap,” aired on Sept. 8, 1966.

BRAIN ACTUALLY TWO ORGANS, STUDY SAYS

New York Post

 

Your brain is actually two organs, new study finds — and it could change how we treat deadly diseases

By Patrice Peck

Published Sep. 18, 2026, 12:51 p.m. ET

 

Next time you have a good, hard think, just know you’re racking your brains.

 

Yes, you read that right — it’s plural.

 

Scientists at Stanford University have discovered that the human brain isn’t one, but two organs. And the revelation could be huge for researching treatment for serious diseases including ALS.

 

The study, published today in the journal “Nature,” showed that the brain is essentially made up of two distinct nervous systems that develop separately.

 

First, there’s a more primitive part called the hindbrain. There’s also the forebrain and midbrain, which handle higher-level thinking and make us distinctly human, from writing poetry and doing math to wondering about our own origins.

 

This discovery helped the researchers to grow a crucial type of brain cell in the lab for the first time.

 

The breakthrough could help close a gap that has hampered research into spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease or ALS) and other devastating diseases affecting the brain stem, potentially opening new avenues for understanding what goes wrong in these conditions.

 

“We’ve shown for the first time that the front of the brain arises from a totally different progenitor cell than the back of the brain,” said Kyle Loh, senior author and associate professor of developmental biology.

 

“Our discovery means that we can now grow neurons from the back of the brain, the hindbrain, in a Petri dish and study their functions.”

 

The brain’s two developmental paths

 

The adult brain is composed of three main regions.

 

The forebrain controls higher-level thinking like language, consciousness and abstract reasoning, while the midbrain manages functions including vision and hearing, movement control, arousal and pain.

 

At the back of the skull, the hindbrain — often called the brain stem — handles vital, life-sustaining functions, including regulating breathing, heartbeat, swallowing and digestion, and basic movement coordination.

 

In both SMA and ALS, specific hindbrain neurons progressively stop functioning, causing patients to lose their ability to swallow and, eventually, breathe.

 

For decades, scientists have struggled to grow hindbrain neurons in the lab because the prevailing theory was that all parts of the brain developed from the same source.

 

Scientists examined the earliest stages of embryonic development in mice and found that the hindbrain actually follows a separate developmental path. It develops alongside the forebrain and midbrain, rather than branching off from it.

 

They identified two types of brain progenitor cells: one expressing a gene called Otx2 that develops into the forebrain and midbrain, and another expressing Gbx2 that develops into the hindbrain. The two types of cells never overlap, even in the earliest stages of development.

 

“Previous attempts to make hindbrain neurons likely tried to coax forebrain and midbrain progenitors into hindbrain cells, which our study shows is not possible,” graduate student Rayyan Jokhai said.

 

The finding suggests that decades of frustration in this area of research stemmed from scientists attempting to turn one type of progenitor cell into another that it is intrinsically unable to become.

 

Based on their findings, the researchers were able — for the first time — to successfully grow functional hindbrain motor neurons in the lab.

 

The lab-grown neurons had the key characteristics of real hindbrain cells, creating new opportunities to study potential treatments for SMA, ALS and other conditions affecting the brain stem.

 

“Now we have a model to better understand these devastating diseases and work toward regenerative therapies for them,” Jokhai said. “This is a very exciting new frontier in brain research.”

 

The researchers traced this two-origin brain pattern back more than 550 million years of evolutionary time and found the same arrangement in chickens and zebrafish, along with acorn worms and jellyfish, both distant common ancestors of humans.

 

“I was surprised at our findings because the word ‘brain’ implies a contiguous organ that likely has a singular origin,” Jokhai said.

 

“But even 500 million years ago, there were these separate neural systems, which now almost operate as one, which is very cool.”

AH: Leaving the evolution garbage aside, it's truly astounding what God allows us to discover about His creation.