Can you point out where Yvain makes those comments that you think violate b and c?

Here are some excerpts from Yvain's comments that exhibit the problems I mentioned, (as well as others that maybe I should add).

Okay, but don't make the mistake of the guy who says "The mainstream media is all lies - so I'll only trust what I read on shady Internet conspiracy sites". Saying that there are likely flaws in mainstream medical research doesn't license you to discount any specific medical finding unless you have particular reason to believe that finding is false.

This essentially error (b) with elements of (c). From a Bayesian perspective "saying there are likely flaws in mainstream medical research" does mean one should decrease the weight one assigns to all medical findings, thus one should assign more (relative weight) to other, non-scientific, evidence, e.g., evidence likely to be based an anecdotes.

The study mentioned above looks at exciting cutting-edge research over the past decade. It says that 40% or so was proven wrong. This is good and to the credit of medical science! It means the system is working as it should in retesting things and getting the false stuff out.

This argument violates conservation of expected evidence.

[Here follows several paragraphs describing of how much he discourages people from being afraid to take statins along with some references to "good doctors" and "correctly prescribed statin" that seem to be there to help set up a potential No True Scotsman] If my doctor recommends I take statin, I don't care about the base rates for statin "correctly prescribed" by "good doctors", I care about the base rate of statin as actually prescribed by actual doctors.

Then Nancy tells her anecdote

part of what spooked me about them was running into a woman whose husband had taken permanent muscle damage from them, which suggested to me that the side effect might not be all that rare.

Yvain's reply begins:

Rhabdomyolysis, which I think is the kind of severe permanent muscle damage you're talking about, is well-known enough as a side effect of statins that it's taught in first year medical school classes.

Funny how he didn't see fit to mention this it his first post while he spent several paragraphs arguing for why satins are perfectly safe.

There was one statin that may have had a relatively high (1/2,000 per year) rhabdomyolysis rate and was withdrawn from the market after a couple of years for that reason. The statins currently on the market have about a 1/20,000/year rhabdomyolysis rate, which is actually low enough that no one is entirely sure it's not background noise although no one's taking any chances. Since they also have a 1+/500/year heart attack prevention rate, they prevent something like 50 heart attacks for each case of rhabdomyolysis they cause, which seems "worth it".

I'm not sure but somehow I suspect these numbers assume the statin was prescribed "correctly". Furthermore, they certainly don't take into account the base rate for medical studies being false. Also, he next says:

Muscle damage rates increase by a lot if you take statins with fibrates (another cholesterol lowering drug).

Somehow I suspect the numbers he gives in the preceding paragraph assumed no drug interactions.

Note incidentally that while you might be able to use the word that way, the vast majority of people who use it seem to use it in a way closer to what sketerpot is talking about. If one interacts at all with either young earth creationists or homeopaths for example it often doesn't take long before the term is thrown around.

In my experience scientists arguing with creationists (I haven't looked at arguments with homeopaths) frequently make the mistakes I list above, as well as a few related ones. In particular using the AJ Milne quote ciphergoth cited in an argument against creationism is itself at best a straw man, after all the creationist also cares about getting the facts right, in fact that's why he's arguing with the scientist, because he believes the scientist has his facts wrong.

In any case the underlying argument in the AJ Milne quote is: all people are about truth; therefore, you should believe what science has to say about subject X.

This is an example of either (1) or (2) depending on how the implicit premises are made precise.