Some motorcycles even twin leading shoes on the front (maybe even four leading shoes with two sided drum brakes). These had issues with modulation like the Pederson brakes. You also had twin trailing shoes when backing up, so you had to squeeze the brakes extra hard then.
A slight nitpick, the torque applied to the caliper from the disc, through the pads, does travel through the caliper mounting bolts. It's a lateral force rather then a axial one but it does go through fasteners.
This wikipedia photo happens to be from an AMC pacer, but it does show the frame that takes the braking torque load (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Detail_of_-_AMC_Pacer_-_r...). The frame is the lighter metal object at the top above the top edge of one of the pads.
I wonder what prevented this camming innovation from being transferred to the more conventional drum brake of the time?
I'm not an engineer, but I do have some wrenching hours under my belt. I see a flaw in the design: The two halves of the drum are held together by machine screws/bolts. The braking pressure from the pads is applied directly to these screws. If they are not properly fastened, or if they are loosening over time, then braking force will be directly impacted. A failure could result in a total loss of braking ability. A conventional drum or disk brake is kind of fail safe in that regard: The mechanical pressure from the brake pads is not transferred through any fasteners. I see this design less resistant to poor maintenance practice. Maybe they somehow accounted for this and the article failed to mention it.